The primary focus of this report was to establish, if CT is better than MRI in evaluating head injuries, and if one of the modality is specific in diagnosing particular brain injuries for a patient in acute and chronic phase. It was of importance to undertake this work, in order to emphasize their purpose and limitation, and find out while CT scans are currently the standard test used to diagnose brain injury.Computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) are currently two of the latest modality for producing computerized images of the brain injuries. Both CT and MRI give vastly more information about the brain injuries. However, CT is the standard method of investigating an unconscious patient with a traumatic head injury as it most sensitive to acute haemorrhage and bone fractures. CT is more widely available twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week unlike MRI. CT is often the initial imaging modality of choice for diagnose brain injury. CT is an important tool in examining of patients with serious head injury. CT scan is usually order during the first initial stage of the brain injury because it is faster, widely available, and easier to perform than an MRI.MRI is rarely used in acute head injury due to the longer scan times and problems in monitoring potentially unstable patients. However, it is more appropriate in examining the prolong brain injury to evaluate persistent symptoms. MRI imaging of the head is similar to that seen on CT imaging; However, MRI allows visualisation of structures with greater differentiation and detail. Nevertheless, CT remains the investigation of choice for the assessment of brain injury in the acute setting. The research argued that the choice of modality is CT as it widely used... ... middle of paper ... ...erpret radiographic imaging). Discussion could include other factors such as, what part of the head is being examined, and the age of the patient, and medical conditions. For example MRI cannot used if the patient has any metallic equipment embedded in anywhere in the body, as well as claustrophobic patient. In addition, the study could have interview the respondents to get more accurate detail. Personal interviews could yield better and accurate information regarding respondents’ knowledge and attitudes. This method could have support the data. My methodology could have also included questioning or interviewing other professionals who also use the machines. Such as, Nuclear medicine technologist. This could have been part of the study. Nevertheless there was overwhelming evidence to suggest that CT scan is preferable over MRI scan in evaluation of brain injuries.