Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-s2hrs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-15T19:14:11.894Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

How Important is the Scientific Literature in Guiding Clinical Decisions?: The Case of Magnetic Resonance Imaging

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 March 2009

Scott D. Ramsey ,
Alan L. Hillman ,
Laura R. Renshaw ,
John R. Kimberly ,
Mark V. Pauly  and
J. Sanford Schwartz
Scott D. Ramsey
Affiliation:
University of Pennsylvania and University of Washington
Alan L. Hillman
Affiliation:
University of Pennsylvania
Laura R. Renshaw
Affiliation:
University of Pennsylvania
John R. Kimberly
Affiliation:
University of Pennsylvania
Mark V. Pauly
Affiliation:
University of Pennsylvania
J. Sanford Schwartz
Affiliation:
University of Pennsylvania
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Little is known about how information diffuses to clinicians and influences their purchase and use of new technology. This is especially true about the role of the scientific literature. As a case study, we examined the literature for magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) during the years preceding and the first five years following its clinical introduction. Using a computerized retrieval system, we identified approximately 1,700 citations in which MRI was the major topic. The clinical literature on MRI was heavily concentrated in radiology journals. Less than 28% of articles compared MRI with alternative diagnostic technologies. During the first five years of clinical availability, the diffusion patterns of scientific articles and operational units mirrored the example set by computerized tomography (CT), in that a substantial number of units were purchased in both research and nonresearch settings before studies were available comparing them to alternative diagnostic technologies. These patterns of diffusion, combined with other studies of the MRI literature's content and methodology, suggest that less comprehensive and objective sources of information were important in early purchasing decisions. This study also suggests that the present readership and publication patterns of professional journals may not facilitate effective, rapid information dissemination about innovations to a broad spectrum of clinicians.

Type
General Essays
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 9 , Issue 2 , Spring 1993 , pp. 253 - 262
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.Becker, M. H.Factors affecting diffusion of innovations among health professionals. American Journal of Public Health, 1970, 60, 294–304.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2.Coleman, J. S., Katz, E., & Menzel., H.Medical innovation: A diffusion study. Indianapolis IN: Bobbs-Merrill, 1966, 51–65.Google Scholar
3.Cooper, L. S., Chalmers, T. C., & McCally, M.Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI): Poor quality of published evaluations of diagnostic precision. Clinical Research, 1985, 33, 579a.Google Scholar
4.Cooper, L. S., Chalmers, 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.Creditor, M. C., & Garrett, J. B.The information base for diffusion of technology: Computed tomography scanning. New England Journal of Medicine, 1977, 297, 49–52.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6.Greer, A. L.The state of the art versus the state of the science: The diffusion of the new medical technologies into practice. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 1988, 4, 5–26.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7.Hillman, A. L., & Schwartz, J. S.The adoption and diffusion of CT and MRI in the US: A comparative analysis. Medical Care, 1985, 23, 1283–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8.Hillman, A. L., & Schwartz, J. S.The diffusion of magnetic resonance imaging: Patterns of siting and ownership in an era of changing incentives. American Journal of Roentgenology, 1986, 146, 963–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9.Odeblad, E.Proton magnetic resonance studies on the physical state of protein in the vaginal epithelium. Ada Obstetrica et Gynecologica Scandanavia, 1966, 44, 595–606.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10.Panzer, R. J., Kido, D., & Hindmarsh, T.A methodologic assessment of studies comparing magnetic resonance imaging and computed tomography of the brain. Acta Radiologica, 1987, 369(Suppl.), 269–74.Google Scholar
11.Schara, M., Sentjurc, M., Aurersperg, M., & Golouh, R.Characterization of malignant thyroid gland tissue by magnetic resonance methods. British Journal of Cancer, 1974, 29, 483–86.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12.Schwartz, J. S. Evaluating diagnostic technologies. In Institute of Medicine, Committee for Evaluating Medical Technologies in Clinical Use (ed.). Assessing medical technology Washington, DC:National Academy Press, 1985, 80–89.Google Scholar
13.SCI Journal Citation Reporter, 1986, 18, 258.Google Scholar
14.Stross, J. K., & Harlan, W. R.Dissemination of relevant information on hypertension. Journal of the American Medical Association, 1981, 246, 360–62.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
15.Weinberg, A. D., Ullian, L., Richards, W. D., & Cooper, P.Informal advice and information seeking between physicians. Journal of Medical Education, 1986, 56, 174–80.Google Scholar
16.Williamson, J. W., German, P. S., Weiss, R., et al. Health science information management and continuing education of physicians: A survey of US primary care practitioners and their opinion leaders. Annals of Internal Medicine, 1989, 110, 151–60.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed