Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

Reject analysis: a pilot programme for image quality management.

T N Arvanitis1, P M Parizel, H R Degryse

  • 1Department of Radiology and Medical Imaging, Antwerp University Hospital, Belgium.

European Journal of Radiology
|May 1, 1991
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Gadolinium Deposition Safety: Seeking the Patient's Perspective.

AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology·2020
Same author

Lesion detection on a combined "All-in-One" window compared to conventional window settings in thoracic oncology chest CT examinations.

Diagnostic and interventional imaging·2019
Same author

MRI following primary repair of the anterior cruciate ligament.

Clinical radiology·2019
Same author

Risk factors for readmission of inpatients with diabetes: A systematic review.

Journal of diabetes and its complications·2019
Same author

Posttraumatic retroclival hematoma: a case report.

Acta neurologica Belgica·2019
Same author

Lithium-Induced Nephropathy.

JBR-BTR : organe de la Societe royale belge de radiologie (SRBR) = orgaan van de Koninklijke Belgische Vereniging voor Radiologie (KBVR)·2018
Same journal

Co-clinical CT radiomics pipeline to establish candidate imaging biomarkers for colorectal cancer.

European journal of radiology·2026
Same journal

T2-MAP outperforms native T1-MAP for staging liver fibrosis independent of steatosis and iron overload: A dual-cohort causal validation study.

European journal of radiology·2026
Same journal

The added value of 3.0 T quantitative multivoxel proton <sup>1</sup>H-MR spectroscopy in the diagnostic work-up of breast lesions.

European journal of radiology·2026
Same journal

A novel MRI-based formal head bone quality score for predicting the prognosis of the normal hip in patients with unilateral nontraumatic osteonecrosis of the femoral head.

European journal of radiology·2026
Same journal

Prediction of efficacy and prognosis of PD‑1/PD‑L1 inhibitor combination chemotherapy for gastric cancer using an AI model based on dual‑energy CT: A multicenter study.

European journal of radiology·2026
Same journal

Superb microvascular imaging for evaluating the efficacy of microwave ablation in primary Hyperparathyroidism: A prospective study.

European journal of radiology·2026
See all related articles

Radiographic film wastage in hospitals averaged 7.6%. Analysis identified key factors contributing to film rejection and wastage, informing potential cost-saving strategies.

Area of Science:

  • Radiology
  • Healthcare Management
  • Medical Imaging Technology

Background:

  • Radiographic film is a significant consumable in diagnostic imaging.
  • Film wastage contributes to increased operational costs and environmental concerns in healthcare facilities.
  • Optimizing film usage is crucial for efficient hospital resource management.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To analyze radiographic film wastage over a 9-week period at a university hospital.
  • To identify and evaluate the parameters influencing radiographic film rejection rates.
  • To correlate personnel experience with film wastage and retake rates.

Main Methods:

  • A 9-week observational study was conducted at a 600-bed university hospital.
  • Radiographic film reject rates were systematically recorded and analyzed.

Related Experiment Videos

  • Data on reasons for rejection, retake rates, and personnel experience were collected and statistically evaluated.

    • Main Results:

    • An overall radiographic film reject rate of 7.6% was determined.
    • Specific parameters contributing to film wastage were identified and quantified.
    • The relationship between staff experience and the amount of rejected film was investigated.

    Conclusions:

    • The study quantifies radiographic film wastage, highlighting areas for improvement.
    • Understanding the factors behind film rejection can lead to targeted interventions.
    • Reducing film wastage can result in significant cost savings and improved environmental sustainability.