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...
Main Authors: | , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |