Praxis Medica
Sign in
Issue image

More articles from Volume 49, Issue 1, 2020

Relationship between ACR and other determinants of microalbuminuria in T2DM patients

Uticaj porođajne mase i aktuelne težine deteta na nastanak prevremenog puberteta

Frequency and histological-cytological correlation of premalignant and malignant changes in the cervix in women of different ages

Errors and artifacts on radiographs

Strategije suočavanja sa anksioznošću u situaciji testiranja engleskog jezika kod studenata visokog i niskog samopoštovanja

Errors and artifacts on radiographs

Simon Nikolić ,
Simon Nikolić
View authors publications

Search this author on:

PubMed | Google Scholar
Aleksandra Milenković ,
Aleksandra Milenković
View authors publications

Search this author on:

PubMed | Google Scholar
Bojan Tomić ,
Bojan Tomić
View authors publications

Search this author on:

PubMed | Google Scholar
Branislava Radović ,
Branislava Radović
View authors publications

Search this author on:

PubMed | Google Scholar
Miloš Gašić Orcid logo
Miloš Gašić
View authors publications

Search this author on:

PubMed | Google Scholar

Published: 01.12.2019.

Volume 49, Issue 1 (2020)

pp. 19-22;

https://doi.org/10.5937/pramed2002019n

Abstract

Introduction: The process of recording a patient includes a procedure with several separate segments during work that together provide the imaging to be obtained for adequate radiological analysis. Throughout the process, it is possible to experience errors that create artifacts on X-rays which ultimately results in an inadequate recording that is not for valid analysis. Aim: Determine the total number of radiological films that are not for valid analysis. Sort out and analyze errors in radiographs according to the work process. Provide recommendations for improving the quality in the process of recording the patient. Material and methods: A prospective study was conducted at the Radiology Clinic of the Clinical Hospital Center Pristina-Gracanica, for two calendar years. All films that are not for valid analysis were considered. The radiological procedure of patient imaging was broken down into logical segments so that possible errors could be observed. We have summarized the causes of the artifacts in five appropriate groups (errors made by the recording technique, during the acquisition of the image, caused by the object of recording, during the processing of films in an automated machine and improper handling of films). Results: The total amount of used X-ray films is 32600 pieces, of which 242 (0.74%) were errors and artifacts. The most common format of a film with an error or artifact was 30x40 cm. A frequency of errors according to the cause of the occurrence is classified into appropriate groups. The largest number was in a group 1 - 155 (64.04%), in a group 2 - 3 (1.24%), in a group 3 - 13 (5.37%), in a group 4 - 67 (27.69%), and in a group 5 - 4 (1.66%). Conclusion: In the proper systematization of all observed errors and artifacts of X-ray film, it allows us to realise the place of error during the whole process of recording and processing of the film. We hereby wish to propose their elimination and improve the quality of the radiology department.

References

1.
D.R. D, S. C, A.D.A. M, I.D. M, K.H N. Diagnostic Radiology Physics: A Handbook for Teachers and Students. 2014.
2.
Avrin DE, Urbania TH. Demise of Film. Vol. 21, Academic Radiology. 2014. p. 303–4.
3.
Gray JE. Technical aspects of screen-film radiography, film processing, and quality control. Vol. 17, RadioGraphics. 1997. p. 177–87.
4.
Mali WP. Errors in radiologic studies Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd. Vol. 27. 2002. p. 146.
5.
Zakon o zaštiti od jonizujućeg zračenja i o nuklearnoj sigurnosti.
6.
Pravilnik o granicama izlaganja jonizujućim zračenjima i merenjima radi procene nivoa izlaganja jonizujućim zračenjima. In 50AD.
7.
M. T, B G. Rendgensko zračenje i zaštita u medicinskoj dijagnostici. 1998.
8.
Robinson PJ. Radiology’s Achilles’ heel: error and variation in the interpretation of the Röntgen image. Vol. 70, The British Journal of Radiology. 1997. p. 1085–98.
9.
Adejoh T, Onwuzu SWI, Nkubli FB, Ikegwuonu NC. Film-Screen Radiographic Artefacts: A Paradigm Shift in Classification. Vol. 04, Open Journal of Medical Imaging. 2014. p. 108–11.
10.
Kundel HL. History of Research in Medical Image Perception. Vol. 3, Journal of the American College of Radiology. 2006. p. 402–8.
11.
Doubilet P, Herman P. Interpretation of radiographs: effect of clinical history. Vol. 137, American Journal of Roentgenology. 1981. p. 1055–8.
12.
Pescarini L, Inches I. Approccio sistematico all’errore umano nella diagnostica per immagini. Vol. 111, La radiologia medica. 2006. p. 252–67.
13.
Nikolić S, Tomić B, Milenković A, Radović B, Gašić M. Analysis of radiological cabinets condition in the territory of Kosovo and Metohija. Vol. 47, Praxis medica. 2018. p. 41–6.
14.
Pravilnik o utvrđivanju programa za dopunsko obučavanje i osposobljavanje profesionalno izloženih lica i lica odgovornih za sprovođenje mera zaštite od jonizujućeg zračenja.
15.
Kaewlai R, Abujudeh H. Peer Review in Clinical Radiology Practice. Vol. 199, American Journal of Roentgenology. 2012. p. W158–62.
16.
Alpert HR, Hillman BJ. Quality and variability in diagnostic radiology. Vol. 1, Journal of the American College of Radiology. 2004. p. 127–32.
17.
Brealey S. Measuring the Effects of Image Interpretation: An Evaluative Framework. Vol. 56, Clinical Radiology. 2001. p. 341–7.

Citation

Copyright

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

Article metrics

Google scholar: See link

The statements, opinions and data contained in the journal are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publisher and the editor(s). We stay neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Most read articles

Indexed by
DOAJ
Google Scholar
ERIHPLUS
MIAR I
Crossref