Trends in knee magnetic resonance imaging

Medical Care

Volumn 41, Issue 5, 2003, Pages 687-692

  Solomon, Daniel H ^a   Katz, Jeffrey N ^a   Carrino, John A ^b   Schaffer, Jonathan L ^c   Bohn, Rhonda L ^a   Mogun, Helen ^a   Avorn, Jerry ^a  

^a BRIGHAM AND WOMEN S HOSPITAL   (United States)

^b THOMAS JEFFERSON UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (United States)

^c LERNER RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (United States)

Author keywords

Appropriateness; Knee; Knee surgery; Magnetic resonance imaging; health care utilization; Technology assessment

Indexed keywords

AGED; ARTICLE; BIOMEDICAL TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT; COHORT ANALYSIS; COMPARATIVE STUDY; FEMALE; HUMAN; KNEE; MALE; MEDICAID; MEDICARE; MIDDLE AGED; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; PATHOLOGY; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; UNITED STATES; UTILIZATION REVIEW;

AGED; COHORT STUDIES; FEMALE; HUMANS; KNEE; KNEE JOINT; MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; MALE; MEDICAID; MEDICARE; MIDDLE AGED; NEW JERSEY; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT, BIOMEDICAL; UNITED STATES; UTILIZATION REVIEW;

EID: 85047699322     PISSN: 00257079     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/01.MLR.0000062705.24024.9F     Document Type: Article

References (15)

1. Gelb HJ, Glasgow SG, Sapega AA, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging of knee disorders: clinical value and cost-effectiveness in a sports medicine practice. Am J Sports Med 1996;24:99-103.
2. Rangger C, Klestil T, Kathrein A, et al. Influence of magnetic resonance imaging on indications for arthroscopy of the knee. Clin Orthop Rel Res 1996;330:133-142.
3. Maurer EJ, Kaplan PA, Dussault RG, et al. Acutely injured knee: effect of MR imaging on diagnostic and therapeutic decisions. Radiology 1997;204:799-805.
4. Boden SD, Labropoulos PA, Vailas JC. MR scanning of the acutely injured knee: sensitive, but is it cost effective? Arthroscopy 1990;6:306-310.
5. Ruwe PA, Wright J, Randall RL, et al. Can MR imaging effectively replace diagnostic arthroscopy? Radiology 1992;183:335-339.
6. Chissell HR, Allum RL, Keightley A. MRI of the knee: its cost-effective use in a district general hospital. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 1994;76:26-29.
7. Bui-Mansfield LT, Youngberg RA, Warme W, et al. Fbtential cost savings of MR imaging obtained before arthroscopy of the knee: evaluation of 50 consecutive patients. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1997;168:913-918.
8. Weinstable 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;21:363-368.
9. Suarez-Almazor ME, Kaul F, Kendall CJ, et al. The cost-effectiveness of magnetic resonance imaging for patients with internal derangement of the knee. Int J Tech Assess Health Care 1999;15:392-405.
10. AMA Master File. Chicago, IL: American Medical Association; 1998.
11. Von Korff M, Wagner EH, Saunders K. A chronic disease score from automated pharmacy data. J Clin Epidemiol 1992;45:197-203.
12. SAS Version 6.12 [computer program]. Cary, NC: SAS Institute; 1986.
13. American Hospital Association. The AHA Annual Survey of Hospitals. Chicago, IL: Customized Report; 2000.
14. Boden SD, Davis DO, Dina TS, et al. A prospective blinded investigation of magnetic resonance imaging of the knee: abnormal findings in asymptomatic subjects. Clin Orthop Rel Res 1992;282:177-185.
15. LaPrade RF, Burnett QM, Veestra MA, et al. The prevalence of abnormal magnetic resonance imaging findings in asymptomatic knees. Am J Sports Med 1994;22:739-745.