Mammographic image reject rate analysis and cause – A National Maltese Study

Mercieca, N.; Portelli, J.L.; Jadva-Patel, Hansa

doi:10.1016/j.radi.2016.07.004

Cited by 9 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Our study shows variation in rejection rates among radiographers in the included European countries. Many factors such as training or work experience as reported by several studies could have an influence [16][17][18]. Training of radiographers to improve the technical skills and operation of equipment is vital to reduce imaging errors [20].…”

Section: Difference In Trainingmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The assessment of image quality and diagnostic value in X-ray images: a survey on radiographers’ reasons for rejecting images

Kjelle

Chilanga

2022

Insights Imaging

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Assessing the quality of diagnostic images is subjective and influenced by factors such education, skills, and experience of the assessor. This study aims to explore the radiographers’ assessments of medical usefulness or rejection of X-ray images in specific cases. Results Eighty-one radiographers from different countries responded to the questionnaire distributed online at the EFRS research HUB at ECR 2020 (a 15% response rate). Forty-two percent of the respondents practiced in the UK and Ireland. In addition to rejecting or keeping images in the presented 30 cases and giving a main reason for the images rejected, the participants explained their choice using comments, 1176 comments were obtained. Sixty percent of the comments were on kept images. The respondents kept on average 63% of the images. In the “Keep”, “Could keep”, and “Reject” categories on average 84%, 63% and 43% of images were kept respectively. The most common reasons given for rejecting an image were suboptimal positioning and centering. Potential diagnostic value and radiation protection were indicated as reasons to keep an image perceived as of low quality reported in n = 353 and n = 33 comments respectively. Conclusions There is an agreement internationally on what makes a good quality X-ray image. However, the opinion on medical usefulness of images of low or poor quality compared to image criteria varies. Diagnostic capability and radiation protection was the rationale used for keeping images not fulfilling image criteria. There seems to be a need for diagnostic quality to be included in image assessment in clinical practice.

show abstract

Section: Difference In Trainingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The education of the radiographers within a particular radiography subspecialty also influences assessment of image quality. Mercieca, et al [18] reports of radiographers with no specific mammography qualifications rejecting more images than those with a specialisation.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The assessment of image quality and diagnostic value in X-ray images: a survey on radiographers’ reasons for rejecting images

Kjelle

Chilanga

2022

Insights Imaging

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This also leads to false-negative or false-positive findings. Because of unsatisfactory quality of mammograms, patients are recalled for re-examination which results in increased radiation dose received by patients as well as discomfort to patients [8] and unnecessary financial burdens [9]. Further, patients are subjected to stress and undertake unnecessary additional examinations, for instance during magnetic resonance imaging or ultrasound of the breast.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

An Innovative Approach to Training of Radiologic Technologists in Mammography

Bliznakova,

Dukov,

Tsekova

et al. 2023

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of this study is to introduce and evaluate a new approach by using 3D printed anthropomorphic breast phantoms in teaching X-ray mammography techniques Radiologic technologists. For this purpose, a physical anthropomorphic breast phantom is created, based on a computational breast version. The phantom is created by a stereolithography 3D printer. The practical exercises were conducted in three sessions with the participation of radiographers students first, second and third year of training, respectively. A survey was prepared to summarise the participants´ opinion about this new form of training in mammography technique. A total of 83 students were trained with the new approach. From these 52 responded to the survey questions. More than half of the students (71.2%) successfully handled the exercise with the physical breast phantom. The training provoked a substantial number of students to express the belief that incorporating modern methods based on digital technologies into their X-ray device training is essential. The instructor was well prepared and with the needed competence. The experience within this training convinces the future professionals to introduce the new technologies in their routine work, particularly for exercising the compression technique and breast positioning.

show abstract

“…2,3 Improper breast positioning can also decrease the diagnostic sensitivity of mammography, potentially leading to unnecessary repeat examinations, higher radiation exposure, unnecessary invasive procedures such as biopsies and surgery, and missed breast cancer cases. [4][5][6][7] In recent years, there have been increasing concerns regarding the quality of breast positioning in mammographic examinations. 4,[8][9][10] In Canada, a study evaluated the quality of 197 mammographic examinations performed between 2004 and 2005 as part of the Quebec Breast Cancer Screening Program.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of the quality of mammographic breast positioning: a quality improvement study

Rouette

Elfassy

Bouganim

et al. 2021

cmajo

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Competing interests: Julie Rouette has received consulting fees from Biogen for work unrelated to this study. Nathaniel Bouganim has received consulting fees from Amgen, Novartis and Roche for work unrelated to this study. Nathaniel Lasry is a shareholder of iMD Research, which received a contract to assist with the design of the professional inspection of technologists from the Ordre des technologues en imagerie médicale, en radio-oncologie et en électrophysiologie médicale du Québec. Laurent Azoulay has received consulting fees from Janssen and Pfizer for work unrelated to this study. No other competing interests were declared. This article has been peer reviewed.

show abstract

Mammographic image reject rate analysis and cause – A National Maltese Study

Cited by 9 publications

References 17 publications

The assessment of image quality and diagnostic value in X-ray images: a survey on radiographers’ reasons for rejecting images

The assessment of image quality and diagnostic value in X-ray images: a survey on radiographers’ reasons for rejecting images

An Innovative Approach to Training of Radiologic Technologists in Mammography

Evaluation of the quality of mammographic breast positioning: a quality improvement study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About