AJR Your Link to CME
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Herts, B. R.
Right arrow Articles by Baker, M. E.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Herts, B. R.
Right arrow Articles by Baker, M. E.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?

American Journal of Roentgenology, Vol 170, 13-18, Copyright © 1998 by American Roentgen Ray Society

ARTICLES

Comparison of examination times between CT scanners: are the newer scanners faster?

BR Herts, J Perl 2nd, C Seney, ML Lieber, WJ Davros and ME Baker
Department of Radiology, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, OH 44195, USA.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine if a newer technology helical CT scanner can reduce CT examination times. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data from 1049 CT examinations were recorded prospectively during a 5-week period. "Room time" was defined as the time each patient spent in the CT room (time patient exited minus time patient entered) and "scanner time" was defined as the time a scanner was dedicated to a specific patient (longer of either time that image processing was complete minus time patient entered room, or total time that patient spent in the scanner room). Data to calculate the room and scanner times were recorded along with the scanner type, examination protocol, and five other covariates. Both times were calculated for the 10 most common examination protocols (n = 769 patients) and compared between the older and newer model CT scanner using analysis of covariance models. The most common protocols were abdomen and pelvis (n = 211); head (n = 146); chest (n = 99); simple sinus (n = 99); and chest, abdomen, and pelvis (n = 68). RESULTS: The mean room and scanner times, adjusted for covariates, were both significantly shorter for the newer scanner (p = .0001). The results for room time were statistically significant for six of the 10 examination protocols (84% of examinations). Likewise, the results for scanner time were statistically significant for four examination protocols (68% of examinations). Examination times were longer for inpatients (p = .0001) and when problems occurred during the examination (p = .0001). Sex and age did not significantly affect examination times (p > .08). CONCLUSION: The newer helical CT scanner we studied significantly reduced the time for many types of examinations.
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Am. J. Roentgenol.Home page
K. Muchantef and H. P. Forman
Cost Accounting in Radiology: New Directions and Importance for Policy
Am. J. Roentgenol., December 1, 2005; 185(6): 1404 - 1407.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Am. J. Roentgenol.Home page
K. S. Jhaveri, S. Saini, L. A. Levine, D. J. Piazzo, R. J. Doncaster, E. F. Halpern, P. F. Jordan, and J. H. Thrall
Effect of Multislice CT Technology on Scanner Productivity
Am. J. Roentgenol., October 1, 2001; 177(4): 769 - 772.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1998 by the American Roentgen Ray Society.