Interlaboratory comparisons of the physical properties of X-ray systems and display devices in clinical conditions: whether it relates to how well we measure

• Autorzy: Kidoń-Szołtysek Joanna , Wołowiec Paweł , Gaweł Joanna

Identyfikatory

DOI

10.2478/pjmpe-2024-0024

• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

Introduction: Polish Atomic Law requires that organizations conducting quality control checks on medical radiological equipment must participate in interlaboratory comparisons. Medical physicists who conduct these tests in their hospitals seek to validate their results by participating in interlaboratory comparisons (ILC) at least once every four years. Material and methods: Comparisons involved measurements of physical parameters for various medical imaging equipment, including a digital X-ray unit, an angiograph, a computed tomography scanner, and a display device used to present medical images. The reference value was defined as the weighted average of the measurements performed by the participants. The En index calculation was used to assess the measurement results of each participant individually. Results: All laboratories achieved 100% satisfactory results for computed tomography, angiography, and X-ray diagnostics, despite using mostly different research methods and various measuring equipment. During the ILC, we observed discrepancies in the results of Hounsfield Unit (HU) measurements in computed tomography (CT), which were due to the size and position of the region of interest (ROI). Additionally, there were discrepancies in the results of dose measurements in angiography, attributed to factors such as the influence of the patient's table on the measurement and the value of the backscatter factor. As a result, a standard measurement method was established. For display device measurements, two laboratories achieved 100%, two achieved over 94%, and one achieved over 88%. Conclusions: The goals for conducting comparative research in the field of X-ray diagnostics have been met. The participants' proper use of the measuring equipment has been confirmed, and the suitability of the research methods for the intended purpose has been verified. We identify potential sources of discrepancies during ILC conducted in clinical settings. Selecting the appropriate measurement geometry and testing procedures is crucial for obtaining valuable ILC results.

Słowa kluczowe

EN

interlaboratory comparison; diagnostic radiology; quality control tests

• Wydawca: Polskie Towarzystwo Fizyki Medycznej
• Czasopismo: Polish Journal of Medical Physics and Engineering
• Rocznik: 2024
• Tom: Vol. 30, Iss. 4
• Strony: 197--203
• Opis fizyczny: Bibliogr. 7 poz., rys., tab.

Twórcy

autor

Kidoń-Szołtysek Joanna

• Invasive Cardiology and Electrocardiology Department, 3rd Department of Cardiology, Medical University of Silesia, Katowice, Poland
• Department of Medical Physics, Upper Silesian Medical Center, Katowice, Poland

• https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0941-2514+

autor

Wołowiec Paweł

• Department of Medical Physics, Holy Cross Cancer Center, Kielce, Poland

• https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6698-9331

autor

Gaweł Joanna

• Faculty of Chemistry, University of Warsaw, Warsaw, Poland

Bibliografia

• 1. EN ISO/IEC 17025:2017. General requirements for the competence of testing and calibration laboratories.
• 2. ISO/IEC 17043:2023 Conformity assessment - General requirements for the competence of proficiency testing providers.
• 3. Cox MG, Harris PM. The evaluation of key comparison data using key comparison reference curves. Metrologia 2002;39:589-5–95. https://doi.org/10.1088/0026-1394/39/6/10
• 4. Working Group 1 of the Joint Committee for Guides in Metrology (JCGM/WG 1). Evaluation of measurement data - Guide to the expression of uncertainty in measurement. Int Organ Stand Geneva ISBN 2008;50:134.
• 5. PN-EN ISO/IEC 17043:2011 Conformity assessment - General requirements for the competence of proficiency testing providers.
• 6. EA-4/21 INF: 2018. Guidelines for the assessment of the appropriateness of small interlaboratory comparisons within the process of laboratory accreditation.
• 7. Garcia I, Navarro M, Macêdo E, Jesus D, Leite H. Response of luminance meters used for radiodiagnostic applications. J Phys Conf Ser 2021;1826(1):012054. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1826/1/012054

Uwagi

Opracowanie rekordu ze środków MNiSW, umowa nr POPUL/SP/0154/2024/02 w ramach programu "Społeczna odpowiedzialność nauki II" - moduł: Popularyzacja nauki (2025).