Patient preference for magnetic resonance versus conventional angiography: Assessment methods and implications for cost-effectiveness analysis: An overview

Investigative Radiology

Volumn 33, Issue 9, 1998, Pages 553-559

  Swan, J Shannon ^a,c   Langlotz, Curtis P ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN MADISON   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA   (United States)

^c University of Wisconsin Health   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ANGIOGRAPHY; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; HUMAN; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; MAGNETIC RESONANCE ANGIOGRAPHY; OUTCOMES RESEARCH; PATIENT ATTITUDE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITY ADJUSTED LIFE YEAR; REVIEW;

EID: 0032471550     PISSN: 00209996     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/00004424-199809000-00011     Document Type: Review

References (21)

1. Swan JS, Fryback DG, Lawrence WL, et al. MR and conventional angiography: Work in progress toward assessing utility in radiology. Acad Radiol 1997;4:475-482.
2. Ware JE, Sherbourne DC. The MOS 36-item short-form health survey. Med Care 1992;30:473-483.
3. Goldman L, Gordon DJ, Rifkind BM, et al. Cost and health implications of cholesterol lowering. Circulation 1992;85:1960-1968.
4. Drummond MF, Stoddart GL, Torrance GW. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programs. 1st ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988:128.
5. Yin D, Forman HP, Langlotz CP. Evaluating health services: The importance of patients' preferences and quality of life. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1995;165:1323-1328.
6. Neuhauser D, Lewicki AM. What do we gain from the sixth stool guaiac ? N Engl J Med 1975;293:226-228.
7. von Neumann J, Morgenstern O. Theories of games and economic behavior. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1947.
8. Gold MR, Patrick DL, Torrance GW, et al. Identifying and valuing outcomes. In: Gold MR, Russell L, Siegel JE, Weinstein MC, eds. Cost effectiveness in health and medicine. New York: Oxford University Press, 1996:82-134.
9. Torrance GW, Thomas WH, Sackett DL. A utility maximization model for evaluation of health care programs. Health Serv Res 1972;7:118-133.
10. Katz DA, Cohen BJ. Temporary treatment-related health states in decision analytic models: Is the full burden of morbidity being captured? Med Decis Making 1995;15:415A.
11. Berwick DM, Weinstein MC. What do patients value? Willingness to pay for ultrasound in normal pregnancy. Med Care 1985;23(7): 881-893.
12. Thurstone LL. A law of comparative judgment. Psychol Rev 1927;34: 273-286.
13. Froberg DG, Kane RL. Methodology for measuring health-state preferences II: Scaling methods. J Clin Epidemiol 1989;42(5):459-471.
14. Patrick DL, Erickson P. Health status and health policy: Allocating resources to health care. New York: Oxford University Press, 1993.
15. Sackett DL, Torrance GW. The utility of different health states as perceived by the general public. J Chronic Dis 1978;31:697-704.
16. Kaplan RM, Anderson KP. A general health policy model: Update and applications. Health Serv Res 1988;23:203-235.
17. Torrance GW, Boyle MH, Horwood SP. Application of multi-attribute utility theory to measure social preferences for health states. Oper Res 1982;30:1043-1069.
18. Weeks J, O'Leary J, Fairclough D, Paltiel D, Weinstein MC. The Q-tility index: A new tool for assessing health-related quality of life and utilities in clinical trials and clinical practice [Abstract]. Proceedings of the American Society of Clinical Oncology 1994;13: 436.
19. Yin D, Baum RA, Carpenter JP, Langlotz CP, Pentecost MJ. Cost-effectiveness of MR angiography in cases of limb-threatening peripheral vascular disease. Radiology 1995;194:757-764.
20. Prince MR, Narasimham DL, Stanley JC, et al. Gadolinium-enhanced magnetic resonance angiography of abdominal aortic aneurysms. J Vasc Surg 1995;21(4):656-669.
21. Hany TF, Debatin JF, Leung DA, Pfammatter T. Evaluation of the aorto-iliac and renal arteries: Comparison of breath-hold, contrast-enhanced, three-dimensional MR angiography with conventional catheter angiography. Radiology 1997;204:357-362.