A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Implementation and evaluation of a protocol management system for automated review of CT protocols. | LitMetric

Protocol review is important to decrease the risk of patient injury and increase the consistency of CT image quality. A large volume of CT protocols makes manual review labor-intensive, error-prone, and costly. To address these challenges, we have developed a software system for automatically managing and monitoring CT proto-cols on a frequent basis. This article describes our experiences in the implementation and evaluation of this protocol monitoring system. In particular, we discuss various strategies for addressing each of the steps in our protocol-monitoring workflow, which are: maintaining an accurate set of master protocols, retrieving protocols from the scanners, comparing scanner protocols to master protocols, reviewing flagged differences between the scanner and master protocols, and updating the scanner and/or master protocols. In our initial evaluation focusing only on abdo-men and pelvis protocols, we detected 309 modified protocols in a 24-week trial period. About one-quarter of these modified protocols were determined to contain inappropriate (i.e., erroneous) protocol parameter modifications that needed to be corrected on the scanner. The most frequently affected parameter was the series description, which was inappropriately modified 47 times. Two inappropriate modifications were made to the tube current, which is particularly important to flag as this parameter impacts both radiation dose and image quality. The CT protocol changes detected in this work provide strong motivation for the use of an automated CT protocol quality control system to ensure protocol accuracy and consistency.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5874106PMC
http://dx.doi.org/10.1120/jacmp.v17i5.6164DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

master protocols
16
protocols
11
implementation evaluation
8
evaluation protocol
8
image quality
8
modified protocols
8
protocol
7
protocol management
4
system
4
management system
4

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!