Journal Basic Info

  • Impact Factor: 2.709**
  • H-Index: 11 
  • ISSN: 2474-1663
  • DOI: 10.25107/2474-1663
**Impact Factor calculated based on Google Scholar Citations. Please contact us for any more details.

Major Scope

  •  Lymphoma
  •  Neoadjuvant Therapy
  •  Chemoprevention
  •  Immunology
  •  Bladder Cancer
  •  Cervical Cancer
  •  General Oncology
  •  Carcinomas


Citation: Clin Oncol. 2020;5(1):1733.DOI: 10.25107/2474-1663.1733

Assessment of Radiographic Film Quality in Four Governmental Hospitals in Sidama Zone, SNNPR

Alemayehu Debo, Seife Teferi and Asres Haile

Department of Medical Radiology Technology, Hawassa University, Ethiopia Department of Radiology, Addis Ababa University, Ethiopia

*Correspondance to: Seife Teferi 

 PDF  Full Text Research Article | Open Access


Clinically unjustified, avoidable repeated or un-optimized X-ray examinations may unnecessarily lead to increased risk of adverse health effects hence need to be minimized. Hence the objective of this study is to assess the extent of radiographic film quality using the rejects film analysis (FRA), determine major causes of film reject and estimate wasted money. Cross-sectional study was thus, conducted at four governmental hospitals in the Sothern region of Ethiopia to assess radiographic film quality between February and March 2016. Out of 2,343 exposed films, 106 rejected films representing various types of radiologic examinations were collected from Hawassa University Referral Hospital (HURH), Adare Hospital (ADH), Bona District Hospital (BDH), and Yirgalem Hospital (YH). The types of films and causes of repeats were analyzed. It was found that out of all films studied, the overall reject rate was 3.5%, 5.63%, 10.6%, & 2.8% for HURH, ADH, BDH, and YH respectively. The film reject rates were within those reported in the literature except for ADH. The main causes of reject in the hospitals were found to be mal-positioning 28.9% (ADH), 24% (YH), and 21% (HURH) except for BDH for which the major cause of reject was processing error (30%). The second cause of reject was exposure faults, 26% (HURH), YH (20%), 25% (BDH); whereas patient motion at ADH (27.8%). There was also wastage of 1497ETB (3.95%) or (17964ETB/Yr). On job training of technicians, revision to the current medical radiology technology curriculum related to positioning course, was recommended to save the cost and subsequent reduction of radiation to the general population.


Repeat rate; Reject rate; Film reject analysis; Artifacts; Exposure factors; Positioning

Cite the Article:

Debo A, Teferi S, Haile A. Assessment of Radiographic Film Quality in Four Governmental Hospitals in Sidama Zone, SNNPR. Clin Oncol. 2020; 5: 1733.

Search Our Journal

Journal Indexed In

Articles in PubMed

Metastatic Retroperitoneal Paraganglioma: Case Report and Review of the Literature
 PubMed  PMC  PDF  Full Text
NMR Metabolomics in Ionizing Radiation
 PubMed  PMC  PDF  Full Text
View More...

Articles with Grants

Molecular Pathological Signatures of Gastric Cancer in Koreans Revealed by Label-Free Proteomics
 Abstract  PDF  Full Text
Pediatric Cancer Predisposition Documentation Tool - Standardized Reporting Form for Children and Adolescents with Suspected Cancer Predisposition Syndrome
 Abstract  PDF  Full Text
View More...