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

SUMMARY: 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. Qualit...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Enver OZCETE, Bahar BOYDAK, Murat ERSEL, Selahattin KIYAN, Ilhan UZ, Ozgur CEVRIM
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Wolters Kluwer Medknow Publications 2015-03-01
Series:Turkish Journal of Emergency Medicine
Online Access:http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2452247316600043
id doaj-ac2f7a7304f9403c90492c1033c9edf3
record_format Article
spelling doaj-ac2f7a7304f9403c90492c1033c9edf32021-04-02T10:40:02ZengWolters Kluwer Medknow PublicationsTurkish Journal of Emergency Medicine2452-24732015-03-01151812Comparison of Conventional Radiography and Digital Computerized Radiography in Patients Presenting to Emergency DepartmentEnver OZCETE0Bahar BOYDAK1Murat ERSEL2Selahattin KIYAN3Ilhan UZ4Ozgur CEVRIM5Department of Emergency Medicine, Ege University School of Medicine, Izmir, Turkey; Correspondence: Enver OZCETE, MD. Ege Universitesi Tip Fakultesi, Acil Tip Anabilim Dali, Izmir, TurkeyDepartment of Internal Medicine, Ege University School of Medicine, Izmir, TurkeyDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Ege University School of Medicine, Izmir, TurkeyDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Ege University School of Medicine, Izmir, TurkeyDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Ege University School of Medicine, Izmir, TurkeyDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Ege University School of Medicine, Izmir, TurkeySUMMARY: 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. Key words: Conventional radiography, digital CR, emergency departmenthttp://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2452247316600043
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Enver OZCETE
Bahar BOYDAK
Murat ERSEL
Selahattin KIYAN
Ilhan UZ
Ozgur CEVRIM
spellingShingle Enver OZCETE
Bahar BOYDAK
Murat ERSEL
Selahattin KIYAN
Ilhan UZ
Ozgur CEVRIM
Comparison of Conventional Radiography and Digital Computerized Radiography in Patients Presenting to Emergency Department
Turkish Journal of Emergency Medicine
author_facet Enver OZCETE
Bahar BOYDAK
Murat ERSEL
Selahattin KIYAN
Ilhan UZ
Ozgur CEVRIM
author_sort Enver OZCETE
title Comparison of Conventional Radiography and Digital Computerized Radiography in Patients Presenting to Emergency Department
title_short Comparison of Conventional Radiography and Digital Computerized Radiography in Patients Presenting to Emergency Department
title_full Comparison of Conventional Radiography and Digital Computerized Radiography in Patients Presenting to Emergency Department
title_fullStr Comparison of Conventional Radiography and Digital Computerized Radiography in Patients Presenting to Emergency Department
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of Conventional Radiography and Digital Computerized Radiography in Patients Presenting to Emergency Department
title_sort comparison of conventional radiography and digital computerized radiography in patients presenting to emergency department
publisher Wolters Kluwer Medknow Publications
series Turkish Journal of Emergency Medicine
issn 2452-2473
publishDate 2015-03-01
description SUMMARY: 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. Key words: Conventional radiography, digital CR, emergency department
url http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2452247316600043
work_keys_str_mv AT enverozcete comparisonofconventionalradiographyanddigitalcomputerizedradiographyinpatientspresentingtoemergencydepartment
AT baharboydak comparisonofconventionalradiographyanddigitalcomputerizedradiographyinpatientspresentingtoemergencydepartment
AT muratersel comparisonofconventionalradiographyanddigitalcomputerizedradiographyinpatientspresentingtoemergencydepartment
AT selahattinkiyan comparisonofconventionalradiographyanddigitalcomputerizedradiographyinpatientspresentingtoemergencydepartment
AT ilhanuz comparisonofconventionalradiographyanddigitalcomputerizedradiographyinpatientspresentingtoemergencydepartment
AT ozgurcevrim comparisonofconventionalradiographyanddigitalcomputerizedradiographyinpatientspresentingtoemergencydepartment
_version_ 1724167053338738688