Cost benefit analysis of computerized radiography system in a tertiary care hospital


  • Yayati Pimpalwar Department of Radiology, Military Hospital, Ahmedabad, Gujarat, India
  • Akhilesh Rao Department of Radiology, Military Hospital, Namkum, Jharkhand, India
  • Yashasvi Shukla Department of Radiology, Command Hospital, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, India



Cost benefit analysis, Cost effectiveness analysis, Computerized radiography


Background: Computed radiography (CR) has presently proven to be both efficient and cost effective as against conventional radiography. Cost benefit and cost effectiveness analysis of a newly installed computerized radiography system in comparison with Conventional radiography set-up in a tertiary care hospital.

Methods: Costs incurred under major heads were calculated and compared for both Computerized and Conventional radiography systems. A brief survey regarding the overall clinician and patients response towards the newly installed CR system was carried out and results were calculated.

Results: CR system proves to be highly efficient tool in the department of radiology to provide not only better quality images and faster means of image acquisition and archiving but also higher rates of satisfaction amongst radiology staff, clinicians and patients. Overall cost-effectiveness as well as the consumer satisfaction of the new technology is good as compared to conventional radiography. CR reduces repetition of images due to artifacts caused by dark room procedures and due to the provision of multiple images on a single film an average reduction in film expenditure. It reduces waiting period for patients and increases level of satisfaction in clinicians working in critical care dept. and A&E dept. due to early processing of urgent films.

Conclusions: cost benefit analysis of CR over conventional radiography proved overall running costs are comparable to the conventional system with a breakeven point achievement in a couple of years since installation especially in a high turnover tertiary care health setup.


Rahoma U, Chundi P. Economic Evaluation of Conventional Radiography with Film and Computed Radiography: Applied at BMC. Advances in Computed Tomography. 2012;01(03):23-9.

Cowen A, Davies A, Kengyelics S. Advances in computed radiography systems and their physical imaging characteristics. Clinical Radiology. 2007;62(12):1132-41.

An Introduction to Cost Benefit Analysis. 2016 Available from: http/: Jose State University Department of Economics (2012) [cited 19 June 2016].

David R, Ngulube P, Dube A. A cost-benefit analysis of document management strategies used at a financial institution in Zimbabwe: A case study. S Afr j inf manag. 2013;15(2).

Patel S, Dawood A, Whaites E, Pitt Ford T. New dimensions in endodontic imaging: part 1. Conventional and alternative radiographic systems. International Endodontic J. 2009; 42(6):447-62.

Marolf A, Blaik M, Ackerman N, Watson E, Gibson N, Thompson M. Comparison of Computed radiography and conventional radiography in detection of small volume pneumoperitoneum. Veterinary Radiology and Ultrasound. 2008; 49(3):227-32.

Don S, Hildebolt C, Sharp T, Shackelford G, Lau D, and Herman T et al. Computed Radiography versus Screen-Film Radiography: Detection of Pulmonary Edema in a Rabbit Model That Simulates Neonatal Pulmonary Infiltrates Radiol. 1999;213(2):455-60.

Jónsson Á, Herrlin K, Jonsson K, Lundin B, Sanfridsson J, Pettersson H. Radiation dose Reduction in Computed Skeletal Radiography. Acta Radiologica. 1996; 37(2):128-33.

Ozcete E, Boydak B, Ersel M, Kiyan S, Uz I, Cevrim O. Comparison of Conventional Radiography and Digital Computerized Radiography in Patients Presenting to Emergency Department. Turkish J of Emergency Medicine. 2015;15(1):8-12.

Verma BS, Indrajit IK. Advent of digital radiography: Part 1. Indian J Radiol Imaging. 2008;18(2).




How to Cite

Pimpalwar, Y., Rao, A., & Shukla, Y. (2017). Cost benefit analysis of computerized radiography system in a tertiary care hospital. International Journal of Research in Medical Sciences, 6(1), 216–220.



Original Research Articles