Literature survery in Radiology department
|Author and Year||Detail of work done||Types of chart||Variables||Types of study||Country|
|Waterhouse et al. ||Provided guidance on how to tackle the situation when your data are incomplete and non-normal and provide recommendations on how to select a particular control chart for healthcare sector. The result showed that MEWMA and MCUSUM are more effective compared to the T2 chart as the MEWMA and MCUSUM are able to detect small to moderate shifts very quickly irrespective of correlated or uncorrelated data. It can be concluded that whenever there is need for quick detection of large shift, T2 is preferred.||Multivariate chart (T2, MEWMA, MCUSUM)||Dose area product, fluoroscopy time and Number of digital images||Longitudinal|
et al. 
|Established the control limits for percentage gamma pass of patient specific intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) quality assurance (QA). The process capability index was used to evaluate the efficiency of process. The average percentage gamma pass was calculated to be 93.7% ± 3.7% for IMRT and 96.7% ± 2.2% for VMAT. The process capability index values for IMRT QA and VMAT QA was 1.60 and 1.99 respectively. It was found that there is lesser systematic errors in VMAT QA than IMRT QA because there was more complicated setup in case of IMRT QA.||X bar chart||Percentage gamma passes||Retrospective Study||Thailand|
|Mezzenga et al. ||Examined the static and dynamic output of helical tomo therapy treatment system using SPC. The binding of acceptable range of daily output checks was given importance and recommendations were given for detailed investigation of daily output checks for Helical Tomo Therapy treatment system.||X bar chart,
Moving range chart, EWMA
|Static and dynamic output||Retrospective Study||Italy|
|Fuangrod et al. ||Provided recommendation for quality evaluation of individual patient and identify the gap for continuous quality improvement. The process capability indices were evaluated for rectum and pelvis cancer treatments and found to less than one. The control limits were identified as 62.5 and 70.0% of the χ pass-rate for intensity-modulated radiotherapy and deliveries respectively.||Moving range chart||χ pass-rate||Longitudinal|
|Lee et al. ||Applied the SPC charts for head, neck, breast and prostate cases of intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) or volumetric arc radiation therapy (VMAT). The number of patients data utilized for head, neck, prostate and breast were 73, 68, 49 and 152 respectively. Finally it was concluded that VMAT quality assurance has better process capability than IMRT. The authors suggested paying more attention for planning and quality assurance before breast radiotherapy treatment.||XMR chart||Number of patient||Retrospective Study||Korea|
Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.
Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.
Initial download of the metrics may take a while.