BJR
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by McRobbie, D W
Right arrow Articles by Quest, R A
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by McRobbie, D W
Right arrow Articles by Quest, R A

Effectiveness and relevance of MR acceptance testing: results of an 8 year audit

D W McRobbie, PhD and R A Quest, MSc

Radiological Sciences Unit, The Hammersmith Hospitals NHS Trust & Imperial College, Charing Cross Hospital, Fulham Palace Road, London W6 8RF, UK



View larger version (29K):

[in a new window]
  		Figure 1. Number of acceptance tests performed each year on MR systems with field strengths of 0.5 T ({blacksquare}), 1.0 T () and 1.5 T ({square}).

 


View larger version (134K):

[in a new window]
  		Figure 2. Single slice through the geometric object TO2A.

 


View larger version (19K):

[in a new window]
  		Figure 3. Total occurrences of hard failures ({blacksquare}) and soft failures () by image quality parameter. SNR, signal-to-noise ratio.

 


View larger version (21K):

[in a new window]
  		Figure 4. Mean failure rates per scanner from 1994 to 2000. {blacksquare}, hard failure; , soft failure.

 


View larger version (11K):

[in a new window]
  		Figure 5. Head coil absolute signal-to-noise ratio (ASNR) results by year. Higher values mean better performance. The theoretical limit for the particular phantom and sequences used are indicated by McRobbie [18]. ––, expected value; —, minimum value; – – –, theoretical maximum value.

 


View larger version (15K):

[in a new window]
  		Figure 6. Geometric linearity (), distortion (•) and slice position ({triangleup}) results by year. Lower values indicate better performance. A trendline for geometric linearity is shown.

 


View larger version (14K):

[in a new window]
  		Figure 7. Ghosting results by year. Lower values indicate better performance. The minimum for short echo time (TE) also applies to quadrature ghosts and is the expected value for long TE. {blacksquare}, short TE; {square}, long TE; {blacktriangleup}, quadrature.

 


View larger version (13K):

[in a new window]
  		Figure 8. Fat suppression results by year. Higher values indicate better performance. The trendline () is for fat suppression ratio. {blacksquare}, water; {blacktriangleup}, fat.

 




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
BJR DMFR IMAGING  ALL BIR JOURNALS 
Copyright © 2002 by the British Institute of Radiology.