Literature DB >> 10525891

Digital vs conventional radiography: cost and revenue analysis.

L Dalla Palma1, G Grisi, R Cuttin, A Rimondini.   

Abstract

The objective of this study was to analyse and compare the operating and investment costs of two radiographic systems, a conventional and a digital one, and to evaluate the cost/revenue ratio of the two systems. The radiological activity over 1 year for chest and skeletal exams was evaluated: 13,401 chest and 7,124 skeletal exams were considered. The following parameters of variable costs were evaluated: the difference between variable proportional costs of the two technologies, the effective variable cost of any size film, including the chemicals, and for different sizes of digital film, variable costs of chest plus skeletal exams performed with the two techniques. Afterwards the economical effect was considered taking into account depreciation during a time of utilization ranging between 8 and 4 years. In the second part of the analysis the total cost and the revenues of the two technologies were determined. The comparison between the digital and conventional systems has shown the following aspects: 1. Digital radiography system has a much higher investment cost in comparison with the conventional one. 2. Operating costs of digital equipment are higher or lower depending on the film size used. Evaluating chest X-ray we reach a breakeven point after 1 year and 10,000 exams only if displayed over 8 x 10-in. film and after 30,000 if displayed over a 11 x 14-in. film. 3. The total cost (variable cost, technology cost, labour cost) of digital technology is lower than that of the conventional system by 20 % on average using 8 x 10-in. film size. 4. Digital technology also allows lesser film waste and lesser film per exam

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1999        PMID: 10525891     DOI: 10.1007/s003300050910

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur Radiol        ISSN: 0938-7994            Impact factor:   5.315


  7 in total

1.  Impact of digital radiography on clinical workflow.

Authors:  G A May; D D Deer; D Dackiewicz
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  2000-05       Impact factor: 4.056

2.  Analysis of the X-ray work flow in two diagnostic imaging departments with and without a RIS/PACS system.

Authors:  Caterina Mariani; Antonella Tronchi; Luigi Oncini; Osvaldo Pirani; Roberto Murri
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  2006       Impact factor: 4.056

3.  X ray imaging goes digital.

Authors:  Kwan-Hoong Ng; Madan M Rehani
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2006-10-14

4.  Qualitative Evaluation of Digital Hand X-rays Is Not a Reliable Method to Assess Bone Mineral Density.

Authors:  Andrew J Miller; Christopher Jones; Frederick Liss; Jack Abboudi; William Kirkpatrick; Pedro Beredjiklian
Journal:  Arch Bone Jt Surg       Date:  2017-01

5.  Observation period for asymptomatic penetrating chest trauma: 1 or 3 h?

Authors:  L Seidzadeh Gooklan; A Yari; M Mayel; S Nazemi; M Movahedi; A Mirafzal
Journal:  Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg       Date:  2016-01-07       Impact factor: 3.693

6.  Digital radiography with computerized conventional monitors compared to medical monitors in vertical root fracture diagnosis.

Authors:  Maryam Tofangchiha; Mamak Adel; Mahin Bakhshi; Mahsa Esfehani; Pantea Nazeman; Mojgan Ghorbani Elizeyi; Amir Javadi
Journal:  Iran Endod J       Date:  2013-01-20

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

Authors:  Enver Ozcete; Bahar Boydak; Murat Ersel; Selahattin Kiyan; Ilhan Uz; Ozgur Cevrim
Journal:  Turk J Emerg Med       Date:  2016-03-02
  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.