The impact of radiology's culture on the cost of magnetic resonance imaging

Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging

Volumn 6, Issue 1, 1996, Pages 67-71

  Kaufman, Leon ^a  

^a Toshiba America MRI Inc   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; COST; COST CONTROL; CULTURAL ANTHROPOLOGY; ECONOMICS; GOVERNMENT; HUMAN; INDUSTRY; LEGAL ASPECT; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; RADIOLOGY;

COST CONTROL; COSTS AND COST ANALYSIS; CULTURE; GOVERNMENT; HUMANS; INDUSTRY; MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; RADIOLOGY;

EID: 0029680719     PISSN: 10531807     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/jmri.1880060113     Document Type: Article

References (23)

1. Levy JL, Hessel SJ. Private practice. Diagn Imaging 1995; 17(suppl):IR3, January.
2. Kaufman L. Consistency in healthcare research priorities. Admin Radiol 1993; X:18.
3. General Electric Co. The incentive for imaging with strong magnetic fields. General Electric ad no. 12 in a series, back cover. Radiology May 1983.
4. Hoult DI, Chen C-N, Sank VJ. The field dependence of NMR imaging. Magn Res Med 1986; 3:730.
5. Kaufman L, Arakawa M, Hale JC, et al. Accessible MRI. Magn Reson Q 1990; 5:283.
6. Kaufman L, Kramer DM, Arakawa M, et al. The optimal field strength in MR imaging: its theoretical basis. Eyzo Joho J Med Imaging 1993; 13:39.
7. General Electric Co. Correlating MR images with localized in vivo spectroscopy. General Electric ad no. 38 in a series, back cover. Invest Rad July 1985.
8. The National Committee for Quality Health Care. Medical technology in the competitive market. Washington, DC: The National Committee for Quality Health Care, February 1987; 4.3.
9. Ogle P. Great field strength debate: history In the unmaking. Diagn Imaging 1987; 9:5.
10. Knutsson HE, Wilson R, Granlund GH. Anisotropic nonstationary image estimation and its applications: part I-restoration of noisy images. IEEE trans commun 1983; COM-31:388.
11. (Lest anyone think that there is immunity from this, I confess that that my colleagues and I have ourselves developed filtering schemes that accomplish similar results: Chen H, Li A, Kaufman L, Hale J. A fast filtering algorithm for image enhancement. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 1994; 13:557.)
12. Kaufman L. First new assessment of self-characterization of published work: a unique view obtained with novel methods. Radiology 1992; 183:323.
13. Bradley WG, Stark DD. Misguided insurers enter field-strength fray. MR, The New Magazine of Magn Reson 1993; 3:19.
14. General Electric Co. Summary of safety and effectiveness data. Premarket approval application no. P830074. General Electric, 1985; p. 11.
15. Jack CR, Berquist TH, Miller GM, et al. Field strength in neuro-MR imaging: a comparison of 0.5T and 1.5T. J Comput Assist Tomog 1990; 14:505.
16. Lee DH, Vellet AD, Eliasziw M, et al. MR imaging field strength: prospective evaluation of the diagnostic accuracy of MR diagnosis of multiple sclerosis at 0.5T and 1.5T. Radiology 1995; 194:257.
17. Steinberg HV, Alarcon JJ, Bernardino ME. Focal hepatic lesions: comparative MR imaging at 0.5T and 1.5T. Radiology 1990; 174:153.
18. Orrison WW Jr, Stimac GK, Stevens EA, et al. Comparison of CT, low-field-strength MR imaging, and high-field-strength MR imaging. Radiology 1991; 181:121.
19. Australian Institute of Health. MRI assessment program final report. MRI Technical Committee of the National Health Technology Advisory Panel. Canberra, Australia: Australian Institute of Health, August 1990.
20. The MR Cooperative. MR Focus, Official Publication of the MR Cooperative. Solana Beach, CA: The MR Cooperative, Winter 1989; p. 5.
21. Bradley WG, Stark DD. Field of view. MR, The New Magazine of Magn Reson 1993; 3:17.
22. Marshall D. Magnetic field strength issues in MRI. Ottawa, Canada: Canadian Coordinating Office of Health Technology Assessment, March 1993.
23. Kaufman L. MRI: leapfrog technology. Admin Radiol 1988; VII: 40.