i
Report an error   
Advanced Search

The occurrence of artifacts in manually processed radiographic film using two different brands: Basis for recommendation of brand to use.

Author

Larisse V. Apawan,
Alexandria R. Buniel,
Marianito Del Rio,
Tamara L. Echavia,
Jacob L. Israel,
Maria Isabel A. Laput,
Jessa May Laxa,
Anne Christine Montejo,
Jasmin Pearl P. Omictin,
Mary Ann G. Rosales,
Jing Johanno A. Sagaral,
Rose Ann Quilaton

Related Institution

College of Allied Medical Sciences - Radiologic Technology - Cebu Doctors' University

Publication Information

Publication Type
Thesis/Dissertations
Thesis Degree
BS
Specialization
Radiologic Technology
Publication Date
October 2015

Abstract

The study entitled "Occurrence of Artifacts in Manually Processed Radiographic Film Using Two Different Brands: Basis for Recommendation of Brand to Use" aimed to determine the occurrence of artifacts when using two (2) different brands of film, their significant difference on the number of the occurrence of artifacts seen, and based on the findings, recommended which brand of radiographic film is best suited for manual processing where no artifacts are seen. The study utilized a descriptive comparative method in determining the occurrence of different artifacts in manually processed film brand X and Y.  The study which was conducted in the Cebu Doctors' University Medical Diagnostic Center used a total of four hundred seventy-five (475) 8x10 inch films. The study's main instrument was two (2) different brands of radiographic film, a medium used to determine the presence of artifacts. 


 


 


          The study found that films processed using radiographic film brand X has a higher occurrence of artifacts compared to film brand Y.  It was also determined that there is a significant difference, with a value of six point fourteen (6.14), between the number of occurrence of artifacts between brand X and brand Y.  The results of the study showed 48.50% of artifacts occurred on brand X films and 21.60% occurred on brand Y films.   Based on the results, the researchers recommend that brand Y is better suited for use during manual processing. 


 


          The researchers recommend a study that focuses more on the occurrence of artifacts in automatically processed radiographic films using two different brands of film.  Also, a study that uses other brands of film in a study that determines the occurrence of artifacts in manually processed film.  The researchers further recommend a study that deals with handling artifacts so that future researchers may set guidelines on how to properly handle film.  

References

1. Abdullah, K. A. . (2010, November 30). HDR 104 Radiographic equipment and image recording 1:Chapter 3: Radiographic films.. . Retrieved from: https://xraykamarul.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/chapter_3_hdr104.pdf
2. Adejoh, T. , Onwuzu, S. W. I. , Nkubli, F. B. , Ikegwuonu, N. C. . "Film-Screen radiographic artefacts: A paradigm shift in classification." Open Journal of Medical Imaging 4, 108-111, 2014. Retrieved from: http://doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/ojmi.2014.4301
3. Alsubael, M. O. . "Analysis of x-ray film quality in primary health careclinics in Riyadh" Journal of Applied Sciences, 9(16): 2987-2991, 2009. Retrieved from: http://scialert.net/fulltext/?doi=jas.2009.2987.2991
4. Anikoh, S. O. , Nuhu, H. , Mangset, W. E. , Mallam, S. P. . (). Analysis of causes for reject x-ray films as a quality assurance element indiagnostic radiology in Jos University Teaching Hospital (JUTH). . . Retrieved from: http://www.globalacademicgroup.com/journals/coconut/Analysis%20of%20Causes%20for%20Reject%20X-Ray.pdf
5. Banahene, J. , Darko, E. O. , Hasford, F. , Addison, E. K. , Okyere Asirifi, J. . "Film reject analysis and image quality in diagnostic radiology departmentof a teaching hospital in Ghana." Journal of Radiation Research and Applied Sciences 7(4): 589-594, 2014. Retrieved from: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1687850714001009
6. Bushong, S. C. . Radiologic science for technologist, physics, biology, and protection (9th ed.). Singapore: Elsevier, 2009.
8. Carestream, . (2013, November 30). Medical X-ray film: Article information sheet. . . Retrieved from: http://msdsdigital.com/system/files/100SH_35X43CM_KODAK_GREEN_FILM_5156_MTR_AIS_EN.pdf
9. Clawson, C. H. . (2002, November 30). Compliance guidance for radiographic quality control.. . Retrieved from: http://www.state.nj.us/dep/rpp/qa/qa_down/radcg.pdf
11. Eze, K. C. , Omodia, N. , Okegbunam, B. , Adewonyi, T. , Nzotta, C. C. . "An audit of rejected repeated x-ray films as a quality assurance element in a radiology department." Nigerian Journal of Clinical Practice 11(4): 355-358, 2008. Retrieved from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19320410
12. Fauber, T. L. . Radiographic imaging and exposure. St. Louise: Mosby, 2000.
13. Fauber, T. L. . Radiographic imaging and exposure (4thEd.). Singapore: Elsevier, 2013.
14. Faculty of Veterinar, . (2005, November 30). Radiographic processing. . . Retrieved from: http://www.vetmansoura.com/Radiology/DarkRoom/Room3.html
15. FujiFilm, . (2003, November 30). Fuji medical x-ray film: Article information sheet.. . Retrieved from: http://www.wmi-t2.com/wpcontent/uploads/2013/01/fuji_info.pdf
16. Goel, A. . (). X-ray film.. . Retrieved from: http://radiopaedia.org/articles/x-ray-film
18. Jiménez, D. A. , Armbrust, L. J. . "Digital radiographic artifacts." TheVeterinary Clinics of North America: Small Animal Practice 39(7): 689-709, 2009. Retrieved from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19531395
19. Kirberger, R. M. , Roos, C. J. . "Radiographic artifacts." Journal of the SouthAfrican Veterinary Association 66(2): 85-94, 1995. Retrieved from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8544168
20. KODAK, . (1997, November 30). KODAK medical x-ray film.. . Retrieved from: http://www.taldent.ee/est/med/filmid/mxg.pdf
21. Lewentat, G. , Bohndorf, K. . "Analysis of reject x-ray films as a quality assurance element in diagnostic radiology." Rofo 166(5): 376-381, 1997. Retrieved from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9198508
22. Long, B. W. , Frank, E. D. , Erlich, R. A. . Radiographic essentials for limited practice (2nded.). USA: Elsevier, 2006.
23. Martensen, K. . Radiographic image analysis. USA: Elsevier, 2011.
24. Nondestructive Testi, . (). Film processing.. . Retrieved from: https://www.ndeed.org/EducationResources/CommunityCollege/Radiography/TechCalibrations/filmprocessing.htm
25. Papp, J. . Quality management in the imaging sciences (4thed.). St.Louise, Missouri: Elsevier, 2011.
26. Papp, J. . Quality management in the imaging Sciences (5thed.). St.Louise, Missouri: Elsevier, 2015.
27. Peer, S. , Peer, R. , Walcher, M. , Pohl, M. , Jaschke, W. . "Comparative reject analysis in conventional film-screen and digital storagephosphor radiography." Europian Radiology 9(8): 1693-1696, 1999. Retrieved from: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs003300050911
28. Sprawls, P. . (). The photographic process and film sensitivity.. . Retrieved from: http://www.sprawls.org/ppmi2/FILMSEN/

Physical Location

LocationLocation CodeAvailable FormatAvailability
Cebu Doctors U11 Oc19 2015 Abstract Print Format

 
Loading…
©2022 HERDIN PLUS. All rights reserved. | Contact Us | Keep up to date