The purpose of this research was to assess if the criteria presented by the American Association of Physics in Medicine(AAPM) are an effective tool to evaluate the quality parameters of diagnostic monitors. Specific obejectives were: Check if primary monitors present minimum quality parameters. Check if secondary monitors present minimum quality parameters. Compare the results fromprimary monitors to the results for secondary diagnostic monitors. Identify the quality control most affectted...
Methods and materials
This was a quantitative descriptive study. The place of this research were public radiology facilities. The sampling technique was non-probablistic of convenience,
because it included all the monitors in those radiology departments. The measuring instruments were the Xi Light detector coupled to the Unfors Xi unit and the standard tests TG18 ( Table 1 ) recommended by the AAPM.
In this research,
31 primary monitors and 11 secondary monitors were evaluated. In the the conformity,
by evaluated criteria,
of the several monitors evaluated is presented in the Table 2 . In the Table 3 it is possible to see the average conformity and standard deviatio for both primary and secondary monitors.
Despite the AAPM are used worldwide as a quality control tool for diagnosticmonitors,
the results achieved line out some limitations in what concern to quantify results.
Theconformity is considered equivalent in monitors that are near the limit and others that are far fromconformity,
many evaluations are qualitative instead of quantitative and the anatomical patterns checklist should be more precise.
Quality in Computorized Tomography – From Image Acquisition to Dose,
Myths and Definitions.
Consulted in 5 May,
at: http://article.sapub.org/10.5923.s.ajbe.201310.03.html American Association of Physics in Medicine (2005).
AAPM on-line report n03.
Assessment of Display Performance for medical imaging System.
Consultado em 15 Abril,