Methodology for calculating a country's need for positron emission tomography scanners

International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care

Volumn 24, Issue 1, 2008, Pages 20-24

  Cleemput, Irina ^a   Camberlin, Cécile ^a   Van Den Bruel, Ann ^a   Ramaekers, Dirk ^a  

^a BELGIAN HEALTH CARE KNOWLEDGE CENTRE KCE   (Belgium)

Author keywords

Biomedical; Emission computed; Health planning; Policy making; Technology; Technology assessment; Tomography

Indexed keywords

COST EFFECTIVENESS; DIAGNOSIS; HEALTH CARE; HIERARCHICAL SYSTEMS; IMAGE CLASSIFICATION;

HEALTH PLANNING; POLICY MAKING; TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT;

POSITRON EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY;

ARTICLE; BELGIUM; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE; HEALTH CARE PLANNING; HEALTH CARE POLICY; HEALTH CARE SYSTEM; IMAGING SYSTEM; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; POSITRON EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY;

BELGIUM; HEALTH PLANNING; HUMANS; POLICY MAKING; POSITRON-EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT, BIOMEDICAL;

EID: 38549141096     PISSN: 02664623     EISSN: 14716348     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S0266462307080038     Document Type: Article

References (24)

1. Agence d'Evaluation des Technologies et des Modes d'Intervention en Sante. La tomographie par émission de positrons au Québec. Montréal; 2003:xvi-270.
2. Agence Nationale d'Accréditation et d'Evaluation en Santé. Evaluation et état des lieux de la tomographie par émission de positons couplée à la tomodensitométrie (TEP-TDM). In: Santé HAd, ed. Saint-Denis La Plaine: HAS; 2005:113.
3. Agencia de Evaluacion deTecnologias Sanitarias. Positron emission tomography (PET) in cardiology. IPE-95/e (public report). Madrid: Agencia de Evaluacion de Tecnologias Sanitarias (AETS); 1995.
4. Agencia de Evaluacion deTecnologias Sanitarias. PET in nonneurological clinical oncology. IPE-97/11 (public report). Madrid: Agencia de Evaluacion de Tecnologias Sanitarias (AETS); 1997.
5. Agencia de Evaluacion deTecnologias Sanitarias. Positron emission tomography with fluordeoxyglucose (FDG-PET) in neurology. IPE-99/18. Madrid: Agencia de Evaluacion de Tecnologias Sanitarias (AETS); 1999.
6. AHRQ. FDG positron emission tomography for evaluating breast cancer-systematic review. Rockville: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ); 2001.
7. AHRQ. Systematic review of positron emission tomography for follow-up of treated thyroid cancer. Rockville: Agency for Health Care Research and Quality (AHRQ); 2002:34.
8. BCBS. FDG positron emission tomography in head and neck cancer. Chicago: Blue Cross Blue Shield Association (BCBS); 2000.
9. BCBS. FDG positron emission tomography for evaluating breast cancer. Chicago: Blue Cross Blue Shield Association; 2001:95.
10. Bedford M, Maisey MN. Requirements for clinical PET: Comparisons within Europe. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2004;31:208-221.
11. Berger M, Gould MK, Barnett PG. The cost of positron emission tomography in six United States Veterans Affairs hospitals and two academic medical centers. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2003;181:359-365.
12. Cleemput I, Dargent G, Poelmans J, et al. HTA Positron emission tomography in Belgium. Brussels: Federaal Kenniscentrum voor de Gezondheidszorg (KCE); 2005.
13. Comite d'Evaluation et de Diffusion des Innovations Technologiques. Positron emission tomography. Paris: Comite d'Evaluation et de Diffusion des Innovations Technologiques (CEDIT); 2001.
14. Danish Centre for Evaluation and Health Technology Assessment. Positron emissions tomography (PET) with 18-F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG). A literature review of evidence for clinical use in the fields of oncology, cardiology and neurology. Copenhagen: Danish Centre for Evaluation and Health Technology Assessment (DACEHTA) (formerly DIHTA); 2001.
15. Drummond MF, Jefferson TO. Guidelines for authors and peer reviewers of economic submissions to the BMJ. The BMJ Economic Evaluation Working Party. BMJ 1996;313:275-283.
16. FNCLCC, Bourguet P, Bosquet L, et al. Recommandations pour la pratique clinique: Standards, Options et Recommandations 2003 pour l'utilisation de la tomographie par émission de positons au [18F]-FDG (TEP-FDG) en cancérologie (rapport intégral). In: FNCLCC, ed. Recommandations pour la pratique clinique. Paris: FNCLCC; 2003:290.
17. Fryback DG, Thornbury JR. The efficacy of diagnostic imaging. Med Decis Making 1991;11:88-94.
18. Health Technology Board for Scotland. Positron emission tomography (PET) imaging in cancer management. Glasgow: Health Technology Board for Scotland (HTBS) (merged into NHS Quality Improvement Scotland (NHS QIS)); 2002.
19. ICES, Laupacis A, Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences. Health technology assessment of PET (positron emission tomography). Toronto: Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences (ICES); 2001.
20. ICES, Laupacis A, Paszat L, Hodgson D, Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences. Health technology assessment of positron emission tomography in oncology - a systematic review. Toronto: Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences (ICES); 2004.
21. Keppler JS, Conti PS. A cost analysis of positron emission tomography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2001;177:31-40.
22. Medical Services Advisory Committee. Positron emission tomography. Canberra: Medical Services Advisory Committee; 2000.
23. Muller A, Stratmann-Schone D, Klose T, et al. Positron emission tomography - the economic efficacy. Koln: German Agency for Health Technology Assessment at the German Institute for Medical Documentation and Information; 2000.
24. Whiting P, Rutjes AW, Reitsma JB, Bossuyt PM, Kleijnen J. The development of QUADAS: A tool for the quality assessment of studies of diagnostic accuracy included in systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol 2003;3:25.