Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T05:22:52.389Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Technology Assessment in Different Nations and Lessons from a Cross-Sectional Survey of Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) Diffusion

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 March 2009

Paul F. Gross
Paul F. Gross
Affiliation:
Institute of Health Economics and Technology Assessment, Sydney
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is a rapidly evolving medical technology which has become widely diffused before comprehensive assessment of its safety, efficacy, cost-effectiveness, and relative cost-effectiveness compared with diagnostic modalities that it seems most likely to replace could be made. In early 1982 there were fewer than ten units worldwide. In August 1984, there were about 150 units and the figure will be closer to 300 by the end of 1985.

Type
An International View of Magnetic Resonance—Imaging and Spectroscopy
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 1 , Issue 3 , July 1985 , pp. 515 - 536
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1985

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.Amparo, E. G., Hoddick, W., Hricak, H., Sollitto, R., Justich, E., Filly, R., & Higgins, C. B.Magnetic resonance (MR) imaging of abdominal aortic aneurysms: Clinical role in comparisons with ultrasonography. Department of Radiology, School of Medicine, University of California at San Francisco, (Submitted for publication), 1984.Google Scholar
2.Bradley, W. G., Waluch, V., Yadley, R. A., & Wycoff, R. R.Comparison of CT and NMR in 400 cases of the brain and cervical cord. Huntington Memorial Hospital, Pasadena (California), (Submitted for publication), 1984.Google Scholar
3.Gangarosa, R. E. et al. Assessment of diagnostic accuracy in NMR body imaging—633 Cases in Abstracts, 3rd Annual Scientific Meeting, Magnetic Resonance Society. New York, 1984, (08), 253–54.Google Scholar
4.Gangarosa, R. E. et al. Comparative study of NMR efficacy by body region—390 cases, in Abstracts, 3rd Annual Scientific Meeting, Magnetic Resonance Society. New York, (08), 1984, 255–56.Google Scholar
5.Gross, P. F.Hospital reimbursement schemes in different nations: Lessons for Australian developments of improved methods of hospital costing and related reforms. Sydney: Institute of Health Economics and Technology Assessment, Health Economicsand Technology Assessment, Health Economics Monograph No. 12 and Cross-National Comparisons Series No. 5, September 1984.Google Scholar
6.OTA. The implications of cost-effectiveness analysis of medical technology. Washington, DC: U.S. Congress, 1981.Google Scholar
7.OTA. Background paper no. 2: Economic evaluations of diagnostic procedures: The case of CT scanning. Washington, DC: U.S. Congress, (04), 1984.Google Scholar
8.OTA. Nuclear magnetic resonance imaging technology: A clinical, industrial and policy analysis. Washington, DC: U.S. Congress, [Health Technology Case Study 27], 09, 1984.Google Scholar