ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: Various studies in primary care and hospitalized patients have discouraged routine use of chest x-ray (CXR) in medical examination. PURPOSE: The study aims to determine the prevalence of abnormal routine CXR and cost of one CXR at a public health clinic and discuss the rationale of CXR in routine medical examination. METHODOLOGY: Data of patients who visited Klinik Kesihatan Bandar Kota Bharu (KKBKB), a public health clinic, from 1 January until 31 December 2010 were examined. The study used cross-sectional design. All patients who came for medical examination and CXR at KKBKB were included. Cost analysis was performed from the perspective of provider. FINDINGS: About 63.1% of 8315 CXR films in KKBKB were produced as part of routine medical examination. Prevalence of abnormal CXR was 0.25%. The cost of producing one CXR ranges from RM15.87 to RM32.34. DISCUSSION: Low yield from CXR screening and high cost of CXR are the main concern. CXR screening would also lead to unnecessary radiation; and false-positive screening resulting in physical risk, unwarranted anxiety and more expenditure. CXR screening is appropriately reserved for high-risk patients and those with relevant clinical findings.
Subject(s)
Costs and Cost Analysis , Radiography, Thoracic , Cross-Sectional Studies , Humans , X-RaysABSTRACT
Extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (ESWL) and ureteroscopy (URS) are two main methods of treating proximal ureteric stones. Success rates and cost-effectiveness of the two methods were compared. A total of 67 patients who underwent treatment between January 2007 and July 2007 at a state general hospital were included in the study. The success rate for ESWL group was 81.8% and for URS group was 84.6%. ESWL technique produced a significant higher overall cost per patient than URS (RM930.02 versus RM621.95 respectively). There was no significant difference in quality of patient's life. Cost-effectiveness ratio was lower for URS. The analysis suggested that URS was more cost-effective than ESWL.