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

Basit Öğe Kaydı
dc.contributor.authorÖzçete, Enver
dc.contributor.authorBoydak, Bahar
dc.contributor.authorErsel, Murat
dc.contributor.authorKıyan, Güçlü Selahattin
dc.contributor.authorUz, İlhan
dc.contributor.authorÇevrim, Özgür
dc.date.accessioned2020-12-01T12:25:58Z
dc.date.available2020-12-01T12:25:58Z
dc.date.issued2015
dc.departmentEge Üniversitesien_US
dc.description.abstractObjectivesTo compare the differences between conventional radiography and digital computerized radiography (CR) in patients presenting to the emergency department.MethodsThe study enrolled consecutive patients presenting to the emergency department who needed chest radiography. Quality score of the radiogram was assessed with visual analogue score (VAS100 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.ResultsThere 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. İnterpretation 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.ConclusionsSince 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-termen_US
dc.identifier.endpage12en_US
dc.identifier.issn1304-7361
dc.identifier.issn2452-2473
dc.identifier.issue1en_US
dc.identifier.startpage8en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://app.trdizin.gov.tr//makale/TWpBMk16TTBOQT09
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/11454/65460
dc.identifier.volume15en_US
dc.indekslendigikaynakTR-Dizinen_US
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.relation.ispartofTurkish journal of emergency medicine (Online)en_US
dc.relation.publicationcategoryMakale - Ulusal Hakemli Dergi - Kurum Öğretim Elemanıen_US
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessen_US
dc.subjectCerrahien_US
dc.titleComparison of Conventional Radiography and Digital Computerized Radiography in Patients Presenting to Emergency Departmenten_US
dc.typeArticleen_US

Dosyalar

Koleksiyon

TR-Dizin İndeksli Yayınlar Koleksiyonu