Process utility for imaging in cerebrovascular disease

Academic Radiology

Volumn 10, Issue 3, 2003, Pages 266-274

  Swan, J Shannon ^a   Sainfort, François ^b   Lawrence, William F ^c,d   Kuruchittham, Vipat ^e   Kongnakorn, Thitima ^b   Heisey, Dennis M ^f  

^a INDIANA UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b Georgia Institute of Technology   (United States)

^c GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^d UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN MADISON   (United States)

^e University of Wisconsin Madison   (United States)

^f UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN SCHOOL OF MEDICINE AND PUBLIC HEALTH   (United States)

Author keywords

Magnetic resonance (MR); Outcomes studies; Radiology and radiologists; Vascular studies

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; BIOMEDICAL TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT; BRAIN ANGIOGRAPHY; CEREBROVASCULAR DISEASE; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; DIAGNOSTIC VALUE; FEMALE; HUMAN; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; MAGNETIC RESONANCE ANGIOGRAPHY; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITY ADJUSTED LIFE YEAR;

EID: 0037373291     PISSN: 10766332     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S1076-6332(03)80100-9     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. Gold MR, Patrick DL, Torrance GW, et al. Identifying and valuing outcomes. In: Gold MR, Siegel JE, Russell LB, Weinstein MC, eds. Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1996; 82-134.
2. Bennett KJ, Torrance GW. Measuring health state preferences and utilities: rating scale, time trade-off, and standard gamble. In: Spilker B, ed. Quality of life and pharmacoeconomics in clinical trials. Philadelphia, Pa: Lippincott-Raven, 1996; 253-265.
3. Torrance GW, Thomas WH, Sackett DL. A utility maximization model for evaluation of health care programs. Health Serv Res 1972; 7:118-133.
4. Brazier J, Deverill M, Green C, Harper R, Booth A. A review of the use of health status measures in economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess 1999; 3:1-163.
5. Torrance GW, Feeny D, Furlong W. Visual analog scales: do they have a role in the measurement of preferences for health states? Med Decis Making 2001; 21:329-334.
6. Bleichrodt H, Johannesson M. An experimental test of a theoretical foundation for rating-scale valuations. Med Decis Making 1997; 17:208-216.
7. Donaldson C, Shackley P. Does "process utility" exist? a case study of willingness to pay for laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Soc Sci Med 1997; 44:699-707.
8. Luce BR, Manning WG, Siegel JE, Lipscomb J. Estimating costs in cost-effectiveness analysis. In: Gold MR, Siegel JE, Russell LB, Weinstein MC, eds. Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1996; 176-213.
9. Hrung JM, Langlotz CP, Orel SG, Fox KR, Schnall MD, Schwartz JS. Cost-effectiveness of MR imaging and core-needle biopsy in the pre-operative work-up of suspicious breast lesions. Radiology 1999; 213:39-49.
10. 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.
11. Torrance GW. Measurement of health state utilities for economic appraisal. J Health Econ 1986; 5:1-30.
12. Cook J, Richardson J, Street A. A cost utility analysis of treatment options for gallstone disease: methodological issues and results. Health Econ 1994; 3:157-168.
13. Swan JS, Fryback DG, Lawrence WF, et al. MR and conventional angiography: work in progress toward assessing utility in radiology. Acad Radiol 1997; 4:475-482.
14. Obuchowski NA, Lieber ML, Magdenic M, Modic MT, Ruggieri PM, Masaryk TJ. Small but quantifiable patient preference for MRA versus catheter angiography. Stroke 1999; 30:2247-2248.
15. Swan JS, Fryback DG, Lawrence WF, Sainfort F, Hagenauer ME, Heisey DM. A time-tradeoff method for cost-effectiveness models applied to radiology. Med Decis Making 2000; 20:79-88.
16. Livstone BJ, Parker L, Levin DC. Trends in the utilization of MR angiography and body MR imaging in the US Medicare population: 1993-1998. Radiology 2002; 222:615-618.
17. 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.
18. Bosworth HB, Horner RD, Edwards LJ, Matchar DB. Depression and other determinants of values placed on current health state by stroke patients: evidence from the VA Acute Stroke (VASt) study. Stroke 2000; 31:2603-2609.
19. Samsa GP, Matchar DB, Goldstein L, et al. Utilities for major stroke: results from a survey of preferences among persons at increased risk for stroke. Am Heart J 1998; 136:703-713.
20. Ware JE Jr, Kosinski M, Keller SD. SF-12: How to score the SF-12 physical and mental health summary scales. Lincoln, RI: QualityMetric and the Health Assessment Lab, 1998.
21. Fryback DG, Dasbach EJ, Klein R, et al. The Beaver Dam Health Outcomes Study: initial catalog of health-state quality factors. Med Decis Making 1993; 13:89-102.
22. Post PN, Stiggelbout AM, Wakker PP. The utility of health states after stroke: a systematic review of the literature. Stroke 2001; 32:1425-1429.
23. Berry D. Subgroup analyses. Biometrics 1990; 46:1227-1230.
24. Nease RF Jr. Challenges in the validation of preference-based measures of health-related quality of life. Med Care 2000; 38:155-159.
25. Drummond MF, O'Brien BJ, Stoddart GL, Torrance GW. Cost-utility analysis. In: Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. 2nd ed. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press, 1997; 155.