Corrections: Costeffectiveness of magnetic resonance imaging of the knee for patients presenting in primary care (British Journal of General Practice(2008) DOI: 10.3399/bjgp08X342660);Cost-effectiveness of magnetic resonance imaging of the knee for patients presenting in primary care

British Journal of General Practice

Volumn 58, Issue 556, 2008, Pages 775-778

  Andronis, Lazaros ^a   Atwell, Christine ^a   Brealey, Stephen ^a   Bryan, Stirling ^a,b   Collins, Sue ^a   Cox, Helen ^a   Cross, Ben ^a   Coulton, Simon ^a   Fylan, Fiona ^a   Garratt, Andrew ^a   Gilbert, Fiona ^a   Gillan, Maureen ^a   Hendry, Maggie ^a   Hood, Kerenza ^a   Houston, Helen ^a   King, David ^a   Morton, Veronica ^a   Orchard, Jo ^a   Robling, Michael ^a   Russell, Ian ^a   Torgerson, David ^a   Wadsworth, Val ^a   Wilkinson, Clare ^a   more..

^a UNIVERSITY OF YORK   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF BIRMINGHAM   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Cost benefit analysis; Family practice; Knee injuries; Magnetic resonance imaging

Indexed keywords

IBUPROFEN;

ARTICLE; BRACE; CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DRUG COST; FEMALE; FOLLOW UP; GENERAL PRACTICE; HEALTH CARE ACCESS; HEALTH CARE COST; HEALTH CARE UTILIZATION; HUMAN; KNEE DISEASE; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MEDICAL SPECIALIST; MULTICENTER STUDY; NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; ORTHOPEDICS; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PATIENT REFERRAL; PRIMARY MEDICAL CARE; PROBABILITY; QUALITY ADJUSTED LIFE YEAR; QUALITY OF LIFE; QUESTIONNAIRE; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; UNITED KINGDOM;

EID: 56249111970     PISSN: 09601643     EISSN: 14785242     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3399/bjgp18X698525     Document Type: Erratum

References (20)

1. NHS Executive. NHS R&D strategic review: annex on primary care. London: NHS Executive, 1999.
2. Suarez-Almazor ME, Kaul P, Kendall CJ, et al. The cost-effectiveness of magnetic resonance imaging for patients with internal derangement of the knee. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 1999; 15(2): 392-405.
3. Mackenzie R, Palmer CR, Lomas DJ, Dixon AK. MRI of the knee: diagnostic performance studies. Clin Radiol 1996; 51(5): 251-257.
4. Oei EHG, Nikken JJ, Verstijnen ACM, et al. MR imaging of the menisci and cruciate ligaments: a systematic review. Radiology 2003; 226(3): 837-848.
5. Bryan S, Bungay HP, Weatherburn G, Field S. Magnetic resonance imaging for investigation of the knee joint: a clinical and economic evaluation. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2004; 20(2): 222-229.
6. Weinstabl R, Muellner T, Vecsei V, et al. Economic considerations for the diagnosis and therapy of meniscal lesions: can magnetic resonance imaging help reduce the expense? World J Surg 1997; 21(4): 363-368.
7. DAMASK Trial Team. Effectiveness of GP access to magnetic resonance imaging of the knee: a randomised trial. Br J Gen Pract 2008; 58(556): 767-774.
8. Brealey SD, Atwell C, Bryan S, et al. The DAMASK trial protocol: a pragmatic randomized trial to evaluate whether GPs should have direct access to MRI for patients with suspected internal derangement of the knee. BMC Health Serv Res 2006; 6: 13.
9. Billingham LJ, Abrams KR, Jones DR. Methods for the analysis of quality-of-life and survival data in health technology assessment. Health Technol Assess 1999; 3(10): 10.
10. PSSRU. Curtis L, Netten A. Unit Cost of Health and Social Care 2005. The University of Kent: Personal social services research unit, 2005. http://www.pssru.ac.uk/pdf/uc/uc2005/uc2005.pdf (accessed 2 Sep 2008).
11. British Medical Association, Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain. British National Formulary. 51st edn. London: BMJ Books, 2006.
12. Department of Health. NHS Reference Costs 2005. http://www.dh.gov.uk/PublicationsAndStatistics/Publications/ PublicationsPolicyAndGuidance/PublicationsPolicyAndGuidanceArticle/fs/ en?CONTENT_ID=4133221&chk=TxHkqo (accessed 2 Sep 2008).
13. National Institute of Clinical Excellence. Guide to the methods of technology appraisal. London: NICE, 2004. http://www.nice.org.uk/niceMedia/pdf/TAP_Methods.pdf (accessed 24 Sep 2008).
14. Drummond MF, Sculpher MJ, Torrance GW, et al. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. 3rd edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005.
15. Barber JA, Thomson SJ. Analysis of cost data in randomized trials: an application of the non-parametric bootstrap. Stat Med 2000; 19(23): 3219-3236.
16. Efron B, Tibshirani R. An introduction to the bootstrap. New York: Chapman and Hall, 1993.
17. Manca A, Hawkins N, Sculpher MJ. Estimating mean QALYs in trial-based cost-efectiveness analysis: the importance of controlling for baseline utility. Health Econ 2005; 14(5): 487-496.
18. Rawlins MD, Culyer AJ. National Institute for Clinical Excellence and its value judgements. BMJ 2004; 329(7569): 224-227.
19. Coyle D, Lee K, Drummond M. Comparison of alternative sources of data on health service encounters. J Health Serv Res Policy 1999; 4(4): 210-214.
20. Petrou S, Murray L, Cooper P, Davidson LL. The accuracy of self-reported healthcare utilisation in health economics studies. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2002; 18(3): 705-710.