Diagnosis of meningeoma: A comparison of costs before CT, during CT and after introduction of MR imaging

Acta Radiologica

Volumn 41, Issue 6, 2000, Pages 539-543

  Laurila, J ^a,d   Suramo, I ^a   Brommels, M ^b   Servo, A ^c   Kotikangas, J ^c   Standertskjold Nordenstam C G ^c  

^a OULU UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (Finland)

^b UNIVERSITY OF HELSINKI   (Finland)

^c HELSINKI UNIVERSITY CENTRAL HOSPITAL   (Finland)

^d Porvoo Hospital   (Finland)

Author keywords

Computed radiography; CT; Meningeoma, cost benefit analysis; MR imaging

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY; COST; ECONOMICS; EUROPE; FEMALE; HUMAN; LENGTH OF STAY; MALE; MENINGIOMA; MIDDLE AGED; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING;

COSTS AND COST ANALYSIS; EUROPE; FEMALE; HUMANS; LENGTH OF STAY; MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; MALE; MENINGEAL NEOPLASMS; MENINGIOMA; MIDDLE AGED; TOMOGRAPHY, X-RAY COMPUTED;

EID: 0034322421     PISSN: 02841851     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/028418500127346171     Document Type: Article

References (18)

1. BOULAY G. H., HAWKES S., LEE C.-C., TEATHER B. A. & TEATHER D.: Comparing the cost of spinal MR with conventional myelography and radiculography. Neuroradiology 32 (1990), 124.
2. DIJKE C. F. & WAES P. F. G.: Head and neck tumours, MRI versus CT. A technology assessment pilot study. Eur. J. Radiol. 14 (1992), 235.
3. DIXON A. K., SOUTHERN J. P., TEALE A. et al.: Magnetic resonance imaging of the head and spine. Effective for the clinician or the patient. BMJ 302 (1991), 78.
4. HAUGHTON V. M., RIMM A. A., SOBOCINSKI K. A. et al.: A blinded clinical comparison of MR imaging and CT in neuroradiology. Radiology 160 (1995), 751.
5. HILLMAN B. J.: Outcomes research and cost-effectiveness analysis for diagnostic imaging. Radiology 193 (1994), 307.
6. MACKENZIE R. & DIXON A. K.: Measuring the effects of imaging. An evaluative framework. Clin. Radiol. 50 (1995), 513.
7. NEW P. F. J., ARONOW S. & HESSELINK J. R.: National Cancer Institute study. Evaluation of computed tomography in the diagnoses of intracranial neoplasms. Neuroradiolgy 136 (1980), 665.
8. PHELPS C. E. & MUSHLIN A. I.: Focusing technology assessment using medical decision theory. Med. Decis. Making 8 (1988), 279.
9. PUIJLEART C. A. B. J., FIGLEY M. M. & MARGULIS A. R.: The impact of new imaging technology on heath care, research and teaching. An international symposium. AJR 149 (1987), 1111.
10. SCHÖRNER E., SCHUBES P., HENKES H., ROTTACKER C., HAMM B. & FELIX R.: Intracranial meningeomas. Comparison of plain and contrast-enhanced examinations in CT and MRI. Neuroradiology 32 (1995), 12.
11. SMITH W. L.: A new job for the radiologist. AJR 163 (1994), 263.
12. SPAGNOLI M. V., GOLDBERG H. I., GROSSMAN R. I. et al.: Intracranial meningeomas. High-field MR imaging. Radiology 161 (1986), 369.
13. SZCZEPURA A. K., FLETCHER J. & FITZ-PATRICK J. D.: Cost effectiveness of magnetic resonance imaging in the neurosciences. BMJ 303 (1991), 1435.
14. THORNBURY J. R.: Clinical efficacy of diagnostic imaging. Love it or leave it. AJR 162 (1994), 1.
15. THORNBURY J. R.: Why should radiologist be interested in technology assessment and outcomes research. AJR 163 (1994), 1027.
16. WITTENBERG J., FINEBERG H. V., FERRUCCI J. T. et al.: Clinical efficacy of computed body tomography, II. AJR 134 (1979), 1111.
17. WORTZMAN G., RICHARD C. H. & MORGAN P. P.: Cranial computed tomography. An evaluation of cost effectiveness. Neuroradiology 117 (1975), 75.
18. ZYLAK C. J. & GAFNI A.: A methodologic overview of the evaluation of costs and benefits in diagnostic radiology. Invest. Radiol. 27 (1992), 483.