Economic Evaluation of Conventional Radiography with Film and Computed Radiography: Applied at BMC


Conventional radiography with film (CRF) has been in use for diagnostic purposes for a long time now. It has proved to be a great assert for the radiographers in assessing various abnormalities. With recent advances in technology it is now possible to have digital solutions for radiography problems at a very cost effective, environment friendly and also with better image quality in certain applications when compared to CRF. Rather than using a CRF a computed radiography (CR) uses imaging plates to capture the image. The imaging plate contains photosensitive phosphors which contain the latent image. Later this plate is introduced into a reader which is then converted into a digital image. The major advantage and the cost effective element of this system is the ability to reuse the imaging plates unlike the photographic film where in only a single image can be captured and cannot be reused. The computed radiography drastically reduces the cost by eliminating the use of chemicals like film developers and fixers and also the need for a storage room. It also helps to reduce the costs that are involved in the disposal of wastes due to conventional radiography. This paper investigates whether it is cost effective to use computed radiography over film based system at Al-Batnan Medical Center (BMC), Tobruk, Libya by using Cost Benefit Analysis (CBA). Apart from the initial cost of the CR System, based on the data collected from the center, from the year 2008 to 2012 (until June 2012) a total of 581,566 images were produced with the total cost incurred using film based system being USD 4,652,528. If the same number of images were produced using a CR system the total cost incurred would have been USD 82,600. Taking into consideration the cost of a new CR system to be USD 120,000 the overall cost of producing these images is USD 202,600. It is observed that an amount of USD 4,449,928 could have been saved over the period of 5 years starting from 2008 to 2012 by using the CR system at BMC. Using Cost Benefit Analysis, the average value of the net difference between the costs and benefits for the conventional film based system is ?83.38 where as for the Computed System it is 22.06. Based on the principles of Cost Benefit Analysis it can be concluded that the system with a net positive difference is more cost beneficial than the other. With the help of the above two analysis it can be concluded that the use of computed radiography is definitely more cost effective for use at BMC, when compared to the conventional x-ray radiography.

Share and Cite:

Rahoma, U. and Chundi, P. (2012) Economic Evaluation of Conventional Radiography with Film and Computed Radiography: Applied at BMC. Advances in Computed Tomography, 1, 23-29. doi: 10.4236/act.2012.13006.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.


[1] G. Roberts and J. Graham, “Computed Radiography,” In: S. Kraft and G. Roberts, Eds., Modern Diagnostic Imaging, Veterinary Clinics of North America: Equine Practice, Saunders, Philadelphia, 2001, pp. 47-62.
[2] R. G. Swee, J. E. Gray and J. W. Beabout, “Screen-Film versus Computed Radiography Imaging of the Hand: A Direct Comparison,” American Journal of Roentgenology, Vol. 168, No. 2, 1997, pp. 539-542.
[3] S. Don, C. F. Hildebolt and T. L. Sharp, “Computed Radiography versus Screen Film Radiography: Detection of Pulmonary Edema in a Rabbit Model that Stimulates Neonatal Pulmonary Infiltrates,” Radiology, Vol. 213, 1999, pp. 455-460.
[4] R. E. Greene and J. Oestmann, “Computed Digital Radiography in Clinical Practice,” Thieme Medical Publishers, New York, 1992, pp. 2-46.
[5] J. R. Patel, “Digital Applications of Radiography,” 3rd Middle East Nondestructive Testing Conference & Exhibition, Manama, 27-30 November 2005, pp. 27-30.
[6] B. Reiner, E. Siegel, T. Mc Laurin, et al., “Evaluation of Soft-Tissue Foreign Bodies: Comparing Conventional Plain Film Radiography, Computed Radiography Printed on Film, and Computed Radiography Displayed on A Computer Workstation,” American Journal of Roentgenology, Vol. 167, No. 1, 1996, pp. 141-144.
[7] S. A. Wegryn, D. W. Piraino, B. J. Richmond, et al., “Comparison of Digital and Conventional Musculoskeletal Radiography: An Observer Performance Study,” Radiology, Vol. 175, No. 1, 1990, pp. 1225-1228.
[8] G. Roberts, “Computed radiography: How It works and Its Advantages,” The AAEP 2000 Resort Symposium Lecture Workbook, 4-6 February 2000.
[9] P. J. Lund, E. A. Krupinski, S. Pereles and B. Mockbee, “Comparison of Conventional and Computed Radiography: Assessment of Image Quality and Reader Performance in Skeletal Extremity Trauma,” Academic Radiology, Vol. 4, No. 8, 1997, pp. 1570-576. doi:10.1016/S1076-6332(97)80207-3
[10] M. Ogoda, “DICOM 101: Understanding the Basics of DICOM. Insights & Images,” The User’s Publication of Computed Radiography, Fujifilm Medical Systems, Stamford, 2001, pp. 2-4.
[11] J. L. Bootman, C. Rowland and A. I. Wertheimer, “CostBenefit Analysis: A Research Tool for Evaluating Innovative Health Programs,” Evaluation & the Health Professions, Vol. 2, No. 2, 1979, pp. 129-154. doi:10.1177/016327877900200202
[12] Z. F. Lu, E. L. Nickoloff, J. C. So and A. K. Dutta, “Comparison of Computed Radiography and Film Screen Combination Using a Contrast-Detail Phantom,” Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics, Vol. 4, No. 1, 2003, pp. 91-98. doi:10.1120/1.1524950
[13] Fujifilm, “Advanced Processing Capabilities of FCR,” 2003.
[14] Konica Minolta, “Nano CR Clinic Brochure,” 2007.
[15] K. Micheal, “Using Cost-Benefit Analysis to Compare Different Test Structures for Rational Robot,” 19 November 2003.
[16] Siemens Medical, “Computed Radiography System. An Easy Step from Analog to Digital,” 2006.

Copyright © 2022 by authors and Scientific Research Publishing Inc.

Creative Commons License

This work and the related PDF file are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.