Technology assessment of magnetic resonance angiography: Why pretty pictures are not enough: An overview

Investigative Radiology

Volumn 33, Issue 9, 1998, Pages 547-552

  Flamm, Carole R ^a  

^a Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BIOMEDICAL TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT; CONTRAST ENHANCEMENT; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; HUMAN; IMAGE QUALITY; MAGNETIC RESONANCE ANGIOGRAPHY; OUTCOMES RESEARCH; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITY CONTROL; REVIEW;

EID: 0032470425     PISSN: 00209996     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/00004424-199809000-00010     Document Type: Review

References (19)

1. Agency for Health Care Policy and Research, US Department of Health and Human Services. Magnetic resonance angiography: Vascular and flow imaging. Health Technology Assessment 3. Rockville, MD: Agency for Health Care Policy and Research, October 1994. AHCPR pub. no. 95-0004.
2. Medicare coverage issues manual. Baltimore, MD: Health Care Financing Administration, Rev. 80. October 1995. Section 50-14.
3. Medicare coverage issues manual. Baltimore, MD: Health Care Financing Administration, Rev. 99. May 1997. Section 50-14.
4. Sostman HD, Beam CA. Evaluation of the quality of clinical research studies of magnetic resonance angiography: 1991-1994. J Magn Reson Imaging 1996;1:33-38.
5. Newman L. Technology assessment. In: New era in medical technology assessment: The private sector comes to the plate. 1997 Medical Outcomes & Guidelines Sourcebook. New York, NY: Faulkner and Gray, 1997;543-549.
6. Till M. Payer evaluates medical procedures. IMDA Update. Mission, KS: Independent Medical Distributors Association, 1997.
7. Mulrow C, Langhorne P, Grimshaw J. Integrating heterogeneous pieces of evidence in systematic reviews. Ann Intern Med 1997; 127:989-995.
8. North American Symptomatic Carotid Endarterectomy Trial Collaborators. Beneficial effect of carotid endarterectomy in symptomatic patients with high-grade carotid stenosis. N Engl J Med 1991;325: 445-453.
9. Executive Committee for the Asymptomatic Carotid Atherosclerosis Study. Endarterectomy for asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis. JAMA 1995;273:1421-1428.
10. Kent KC, Kuntz KM, Patel MR, et al. Perioperative imaging strategies for carotid endarterectomy: An analysis of morbidity and cost-effectiveness in symptomatic patients. JAMA 1995;274:888-893.
11. Kuntz KM, Skillman JJ, Whittemore AD, et al. Carotid endarterectomy in asymptomatic patients: Is contrast angiography necessary? A morbidity analysis. J Vasc Surg 1995;22:706-716.
12. Fryback DG, Thornbury JR. The efficacy of diagnostic imaging. Med Decis Making 1991;11:88-94.
13. Kent D, Larson E. Disease, level of impact, and quality of research methods: Three dimensions of clinical efficacy assessment applied to magnetic resonance imaging. Invest Radiol 1992;27:245-254.
14. Fineberg HV, Bauman R, Sosman M. Computerized cranial tomography: Effect on diagnostic and therapeutic plans. JAMA 1997;238: 224-227.
15. Schwartz J. Evaluating diagnostic tests: What is done - what needs to be done. J Gen Intern Med 1986;1:266-267.
16. Begg CB, McNeil BJ. Assessment of radiologie tests: Control of bias and other design considerations. Radiology 1988;167:565-569.
17. Begg CB, Greenes RA. Assessment of diagnostic tests when disease verification is subject to selection bias. N Engl J Med 1983;199: 926-930.
18. Ransohoff DF, Feinstein AR. Problems of spectrum and bias in evaluating the efficacy of diagnostic tests. N Engl J Med 1978;299: 926-930.
19. Meaney JFM, Weg JG, Chenevert TL, et al. Diagnosis of pulmonary embolism with magnetic resonance angiography. N Engl J Med 1997;336:1422-1427.