Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2016 Mar 2;15(1):8-12.
doi: 10.5505/1304.7361.2014.90922. eCollection 2015 Mar.

Comparison of Conventional Radiography and Digital Computerized Radiography in Patients Presenting to Emergency Department

Enver Ozcete  1 , Bahar Boydak  2 , Murat Ersel  1 , Selahattin Kiyan  1 , Ilhan Uz  1 , Ozgur Cevrim  1
Affiliations

Comparison of Conventional Radiography and Digital Computerized Radiography in Patients Presenting to Emergency Department

Enver Ozcete et al. Turk J Emerg Med. .

Abstract

Objectives: To compare the differences between conventional radiography and digital computerized radiography (CR) in patients presenting to the emergency department.

Methods: The study enrolled consecutive patients presenting to the emergency department who needed chest radiography. Quality score of the radiogram was assessed with visual analogue score (VAS-100 mm), measured in terms of millimeters and recorded at the end of study. Examination time, interpretation time, total time, and cost of radiograms were calculated.

Results: There were significant differences between conventional radiography and digital CR groups in terms of location unit (Care Unit, Trauma, Resuscitation), hour of presentation, diagnosis group, examination time, interpretation time, and examination quality. Examination times for conventional radiography and digital CR were 45.2 and 34.2 minutes, respectively. Interpretation times for conventional radiography and digital CR were 25.2 and 39.7 minutes, respectively. Mean radiography quality scores for conventional radiography and digital CR were 69.1 mm and 82.0 mm. Digital CR had a 1.05 TL cheaper cost per radiogram compared to conventional radiography.

Conclusions: Since interpretation of digital radiograms is performed via terminals inside the emergency department, the patient has to be left in order to interpret the digital radiograms, which prolongs interpretation times. We think that interpretation of digital radiograms with the help of a mobile device would eliminate these difficulties. Although the initial cost of setup of digital CR and PACS service is high at the emergency department, we think that Digital CR is more cost-effective than conventional radiography for emergency departments in the long-term.

Keywords: Conventional radiography; digital CR; emergency department.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Distribution in terms of type of radiography and presentation hour groups of the patients.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Ovitt TW, Christenson PC, Fisher HD, 3rd, Frost MM, Nudelman S, Roehrig H. Intravenous angiography using digital video subtraction: x-ray imaging system. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1980;135:1141–1144. CrossRef. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Moore R. Computed radiography. Med Electron. 1980;11:78–79. - PubMed
    1. Verma BS, Indrajit IK. Advent of digital radiography: Part 1. Indian J Radiol Imaging. May 2008;18(2) - PMC - PubMed
    1. Schaefer-Prokop CM, Prokop M. Storage phosphor radiography. Eur Radiol. 1997;7(Suppl 3):58–65. CrossRef. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Busch HP, Lehmann KJ, Drescher P, Georgi M. New chest imaging techniques: a comparison of five analogue and digital methods. Eur Radiol. 1992;2:335–341. CrossRef. - DOI

LinkOut - more resources