Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-15T19:16:59.087Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Economic Assessment of Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Inpatients: Is It Still Too Early?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 March 2009

Isabelle Durand-zaleski ,
Daniel Reizine ,
Daniel Puzin ,
Jean-Jacques Merland  and
Claudine Blum-Boisgard
Isabelle Durand-zaleski
Affiliation:
Creteil School of Medicine
Daniel Reizine
Affiliation:
Lariboisière Hospital, Paris
Daniel Puzin
Affiliation:
Assistance Publique - Hôpitaux de Paris, Paris
Jean-Jacques Merland
Affiliation:
Lariboisière Hospital, Paris
Claudine Blum-Boisgard
Affiliation:
Assistance Publique - Hôpitaux de Paris, Paris
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This economic assessment of the implementation of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in a French hospital examines data on the diagnostic resources used in neurology and neurosurgery before and after MRI was available. Given a similar patient population and case mix, there was no change in the resources used other than the addition of MRI. So far, MRI appears to be a complement to, and not a substitute for, other imaging techniques used in neuroradiology. The focus of this work is purely economic; its conclusions do not challenge the major scientific contributions of MRI.

Type
General Essays
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 9 , Issue 2 , Spring 1993 , pp. 263 - 273
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1993

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1.Bradley, W. Jr.Comparing cost and efficacy of MRI. American Journal of Roentgenology, 1986, 146, 1307–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2.Brant-Zadwaki, M.MR imaging of the brain. Radiology, 1988, 166, 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3.Consensus Development Panel, U.S. National Institutes of Health. Magnetic resonance imaging. Journal of the American Medical Association, 1988, 259, 2132–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4.Cooper, L. S., Chamers, T. C., McCally, M., et al. The poor quality of early evaluations of magnetic resonance imaging. Journal of the American Medical Association, 1988, 259, 3277–80.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5.Durand-Zaleski, I., Moreau, J. F., & Blum-Boisgard, C.Radiology in the French health care system. Investigative Radiology, 1990, 25, 1246–50.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6.Evens, R. G., Jost, R. G., & Evens, R. G. Jr.Economic and utilization analysis of MR Imaging units in the United States in 1985. American Journal ofRoentgenology, 1985, 145, 393–98.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7.Evens, R. G. & Evens, R. G. Jr.Economic and utilization analysis of MR Imaging units in the United States in 1987. Radiology, 1988, 166, 27–30.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8.Freedman, P. J.Early evaluations of MR Imaging. American Journal of Roentgenology, 1988, 151, 860–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9.Freeman, L.Evaluating and comparing imaging techniques: A review and classification of study designs. British Journal of Radiology, 1987, 60, 1071–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10.Fryback, D. G. & Thornbury, J. R.The efficacy of diagnostic imaging. Medical Decision Making, 1991, 11, 88–94.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11.Fuchs, V. R. & Garber, A. M.The new technology assessment. New England Journal of Medicine, 1990, 323, 673–77.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12.Gutzwiller, F., Gautsch, H., & Chrzanowski, R.Swiss hospital institute’s approach to the problems of magnetic resonance imaging. Journal of Health Care Technology, 1986,157–66.Google Scholar
13.Haughton, V. M., Rim, A. A., Sobocinski, K. A., et al. A blinded clinical comparison of MR imaging and CT in neuroradiology. Radiology, 1986, 160, 751–55.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
14.Institute Suisse de la Santé Publique et des Hôpitaux. Final report of the MRI consensu conference. Berne: Institute Suisse de la Santé Publique et des Hôpitaux, 1989.Google Scholar
15.Kent, D. L. & Larson, E. B.Magnetic resonance imaging of the brain and spine: Is clinical efficacy established after the first decade? Annals of Internal Medicine, 1988,108, 402–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16.Larson, E. B. & Kent, D. L.The relevance of socioeconomic and health policy issues to clinical research. The case of MRI and neuroradiology. International Journal of Technolog Assessment in Health Care, 1989, 5, 195–206.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
17.McNeil, B. J. & Abrams, H. L.Brigham and Womens hospital handbook of diagnostic imaging. Boston: Little, Brown & Company, 1986, 316–17.Google Scholar
18.Panel on magnetic resonance imaging of the Council on Scientific Affairs. Magnetic resonance imaging of the central nervous system. Journal of the American Medical Association, 1988, 259, 1211–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
19.Rifkin, M. D., Zerhouni, E. A., Gatsonis, C. A., et al. Comparison of magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasonography in staging early prostate cancer. New England Journal of Medicine, 1990, 32, 621–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
20.Steinberg, E. R., Sisk, J. E., & Locke, K. E.X-ray, CT, and magnetic resonance imagers: Diffusion patterns and policy issues. New England Journal of Medicine, 1985, 313, 859–64.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
21.WHO multicentre study: Clinical efficiency of magnetic resonance imaging —preliminary results. Liège: WHO, Economy of Health in radiology, 1989.Google Scholar
22.Wittenberg, J., Fineberg, H. V., Ferruci, J. T., et al. Clinical efficacy of computed body tomography. American Journal of Roentgenology, 1980, 134, 1111–20.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed