Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T05:30:36.340Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

How is magnetic resonance imaging used in Iran?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 October 2008

Mohammad Palesh ,
Sten Fredrikson ,
Hamidreza Jamshidi ,
Goran Tomson  and
Max Petzold
Mohammad Palesh
Affiliation:
Karolinska Institutet, National Public Health Management Center, Tabriz University of Medical Sciences and Kermanshahi University of Medical Sciences
Sten Fredrikson
Affiliation:
Karolinska Institutet and Karolinska University Hospital Huddinge
Hamidreza Jamshidi
Affiliation:
Shaheed Beheshti University of Medical Sciences and National Public Health Management Center, Tabriz University of Medical Sciences
Goran Tomson
Affiliation:
Karolinska Institutet
Max Petzold
Affiliation:
Nordic School of Public Health
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objectives: Analysis of and understanding the utilization patterns of diagnostic imaging technologies is important for planning health systems especially in middle- and low-income countries. Almost all published studies have been focused on utilization trends or utilization rates of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) over time and little has been published about utilization patterns of MRI. This study aims to identify and describe the utilization pattern of MRI in Iran.

Methods: Data was collected from referrals and MRI reports of the population covered by one of the largest insurance organizations (Social Security Organization [SSO]) with more than 27 million beneficiaries in the Country. We focused on patients who had undergone an MRI examination during 1 month (October 13 to November 12), 2005. The data collected consisted of 1,656 referrals for MR imaging and 1,547 MRI reports.

Results: No clear association was found between the number of referrals per 100,000 population and the number of MRI machines per 100,000 population (r = 0.30; p = .13). Neurosurgeons, orthopedists, and neurologists contributed to more than 88 percent of MRI utilization. The Spinal column (55 percent), brain (25.5 percent), and knee (11.0 percent) were the most common parts of the body scanned by MRI.

Conclusions: Having identified some of the most frequent users of MRI technology, any plan for modifying or improving MRI use should focus mainly on these specialties. International evidence on using the technology for examining brain and spine indicate that MRI is mainly used in diagnosing the central nervous system (CNS) diseases.

Keywords

Health technologyUtilizationMRIIranSocial Security Organization
Type
GENERAL ESSAYS
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 24 , Issue 4 , October 2008 , pp. 452 - 458
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2008

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. Abduljalil, AM, Robitaille, PM. Macroscopic susceptibility in ultra high field MRI. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 1999;23:832–841.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2. Azizi, F, Gouya, MM, Vazirian, P, et al. The diabetes prevention and control programme of the Islamic Republic of Iran. East Mediterr Health J. 2003;9:1114–1121.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3. Fischbach, F, Muller, M, Bruhn, H. Magnetic resonance imaging of the cranial nerves in the posterior fossa: A comparative study of t2-weighted spin-echo sequences at 1.5 and 3.0 tesla. Acta Radiol. 2008;49:358–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4. Frija, G, Lhoste, JM, Grisoni, J. A new approach to the control of distribution of medical imaging equipment in France. The Scientific Committee. Acad Radiol. 1996;3 (Suppl 1):S97-S100.Google Scholar
5. Hailey, D, Marshall, D. The place of magnetic resonance imaging in health care. Health Policy. 1995;31:43–52.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6. Hart, HR Jr, Bottomley, PA, Edelstain, WA. Nuclear magnetic resonance imaging: Contrast-to-noise ratio as a function of strength of magnetic field. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1983;141:1195–1201.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7. Henley, MB, Mann, FA, Holt, S, et al. Trends in case-mix-adjusted use of radiology resources at an urban level 1 trauma center. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2001;176:851–854.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8. Hutubessy, RC, Hanvoravongchai, P, Edejer, TT. Diffusion and utilization of magnetic resonance imaging in Asia. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2002;18:690–704.Google ScholarPubMed
9. Khorasani, R, Goel, PK, Ma'luf, NM, et al. Trends in the use of radiology with inpatients: What has changed in a decade? AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1998;170:859–861.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10. Lee, DH, Vellet, AD, Eliasziw, M, et al. MR imaging field strength: Prospective evaluation of the diagnostic accuracy of MR for diagnosis of multiple sclerosis at 0.5 and 1.5 T. Radiology. 1995;194:257–262.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11. Malcolm, L. Trends in hospital bed utilisation in New Zealand 1989 to 2006: More or less beds in the future? N Z Med J. 2007;120:U2772.Google ScholarPubMed
12. Marti-Bonmati, L, Kormano, M. MR equipment acquisition strategies: Low-field or high-field scanners. Eur Radiol. 1997;7 (Suppl 5):263–268.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13. Oliver, A, Mossialos, E. Equity of access to health care: Outlining the foundations for action. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2004;58:655–658.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
14. Ostensen, H, Volodin, V. Diagnostic imaging in developing countries: Considerations for improvement. Eur Radiol. 2000;10 (Suppl 3):S397-S398.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
15. Palesh, M, Fredrikson, S, Jamshidi, H, Jonsson, PM, Tomson, G. Diffusion of magnetic resonance imaging in Iran. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2007;23:278–285.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
16. Palesh, M, Jonsson, PM, Jamshidi, H, et al. Diffusion of interferon beta in Iran and its utilization in Tehran. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2008 [epub ahead of print].CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
17. Pennsylvania Health Care Cost Containment Council. The growth in diagnostic imaging utilization. http://www.phc4.org/reports/FYI/fyi27.htm. Accessed July 2007.Google Scholar
18. Schindera, ST, Miller, CM, Ho, LM, et al. Magnetic resonance (MR) cholangiography: Quantitative and qualitative comparison of 3.0 Tesla with 1.5 Tesla. Invest Radiol. 2007;42:399–405.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
19. Semin, S, Demiral, Y, Dicle, O. Trends in diagnostic imaging utilization in a university hospital in Turkey. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2006;22:532–536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
20. Soleymani Amiri, G, Zargari, F. Achievements and challenges of social security health insurance: The experience of the Islamic Republic of Iran. ISSA Meeting of Directors of Social Security Organizations in Asia and the Pacific. Seoul, Republic of Korea, 9–11 November 2005.Google Scholar
21. Vellet, AD, Lee, DH, Munk, PL, et al. Anterior cruciate ligament tear: Prospective evaluation of diagnostic accuracy of middle- and high-field-strength MR imaging at 1.5 and 0.5 T. Radiology. 1995;197:826–830.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
22. Wattjes, MP, Lutterbey, GG, Harzheim, M, et al. Higher sensitivity in the detection of inflammatory brain lesions in patients with clinically isolated syndromes suggestive of multiple sclerosis using high field MRI: An intraindividual comparison of 1.5 T with 3.0 T. Eur Radiol. 2006;16:2067–2073.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
23. World Health Organization. Health system profile, Islamic Republic of Iran. Eastern Mediterranean Region Office (EMRO): WHO; 2004.Google Scholar
24. You, J, Alter, D, Iron, K, et al. Diagnostic services in Ontario: Descriptive analysis and jurisdictional review. ICES Investigate Report. Toronto: Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences; 2007.Google Scholar
25. Zivadinov, R, Stosic, M, Cox, JL, et al. The place of conventional MRI and newly emerging MRI techniques in monitoring different aspects of treatment outcome. J Neurol. 2008;255 (Suppl 1):61–74.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed