Diagnostic Technology Assessments: Problems and Prospects
Authors: Daniel L. Kent, Eric B. Larson
Journal: Annals of Internal Medicine (1988)

Editorials1 May 1988Diagnostic Technology Assessments: Problems and ProspectsDANIEL L. KENT, M.D., ERIC B. LARSON, M.D., M.P.H.DANIEL L. KENT, M.D.Search for more papers by this author, ERIC B. LARSON, M.D., M.P.H.Search for more papers by this authorAuthor, Article, and Disclosure Informationhttps://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-108-5-759 SectionsAboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissions ShareFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail ExcerptAssessment of medical technologies has become increasingly popular in the past 10 years. Development of new diagnostic and therapeutic modalities leads to technology assessments, as shown by recent assessments of magnetic resonance (MR) imaging. Two major driving factors are the need to estimate the scope of benefits of a technology (efficacy or effectiveness), and the technology's costs. Technology assessments and comprehensive clinical reviews can guide clinicians through a maze of literature on new techniques and diagnostic tests. However, the impact of technology assessments is unknown. Although one study (1) showed little effect from several National Institutes of Health (NIH) consensus...References1. KOSECOFF J, KANOUSE D, ROGERS W, MCCLOSKEY L, WINSLOW C, and BROOK R. Effects of the National Institutes of Health Consensus Development Conference on physician practice. JAMA. 1987;258:2708-13. CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar2. . Assessing Medical Technologies. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press; 1985. Google Scholar3. . Medical Technology Assessments Directory. 1988: [In press]. Google Scholar4. STASON W and LOCALIO A. Magnetic Resonance Imaging: Clinical Efficacy, Costs and Policy Considerations. Health Benefits Management Division, Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association; 1985. Google Scholar5. STEINBERG E and COHEN A. Health Technology Case Study 27: Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Imaging Technology: A Clinical Industrial, and Policy Analysis. Washington, D.C.: U. S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment; 1984; (OTA-HCS-27). Google Scholar6. FEIGENBAUM E. Public Health Service Assessment: Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI), 1985. Washington, D.C.: Health Technology Assessment Reports; 1985. DHHS no. 13. Google Scholar7. REVICKI D. Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Imaging: Information Synthesis on Clinical Applications and Cost Considerations. Washington, D.C.: Health Services Research and Development Service, Veterans Administration; 1986. Google Scholar8. , Assessing Medical Technologies, Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press; 1985: 294-300. Google Scholar9. SCHWARTZ J, BALL J, and MOSER R. Safety, efficacy and effectiveness of clinical practices: a new initiative [Editorial]. Ann Intern Med. 1982;96:246-7. LinkGoogle Scholar10. JENNETT B. High Technology Medicine: Benefits and Burdens. New York: Oxford University Press; 1986. Google Scholar11. SHEPS S and SCHECHTER M. The assessment of diagnostic tests: a survey of current medical research. JAMA. 1984;252:2418-22. CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar12. PANZER R, KIDO D, and HINDMARSH T. A methodologic assessment of studies comparing magnetic resonance imaging and computed tomography of the brain. Acta Radiologica. 1986;369(Suppl):269-74. Google Scholar13. KENT D and LARSON E. Magnetic resonance imaging of the brain and spine: clinical efficacy after the first decade. Ann Intern Med. 1988;108:402-24. LinkGoogle Scholar14. RANSOHOFF D and FEINSTEIN A. Problems of spectrum and bias in evaluating the efficacy of diagnostic tests. N Engl J Med. 1978;299:926-30. CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar15. KENT D and LARSON E. Will history repeat itself? The declining sensitivity of MRI [Abstract]. Clin Res. 1987;35:350A. Google Scholar16. LIGHT R and PILLEMER D. Summing Up: The Science of Reviewing Research. Cambridge: Harvard University Press; 1984;32-44. CrossrefGoogle Scholar17. Medicare Carriers Manual: Coverage Issues in Diagnostic Services 50-13; and Medicare Coverage Manual: Reasonable Charges 5246-2. Washington, D.C.; 1985; DHHS. Google Scholar18. HAUGHTON V, RIMM A, and SOBOCINSKI K. A blinded clinical comparison of MR imaging and CT in neuroradiology. Radiology. 1986;60:751-5. CrossrefGoogle Scholar19. ORMEROD I, MCDONALD W, and DU BOULAY G. Disseminated lesions at presentation in patients with optic neuritis. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 1986;49:124-7. CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar20. SALGADO E, WEINSTEIN M, and FURLAN A. Proton magnetic resonance imaging in ischemic cerebrovascular disease. Ann Neurol. 1986;20:502-7. CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar21. KUCHARCZYK W, DAVIS D, KELLY W, SZE G, NOMAR D, and NEWTON T. Pituitary adenomas: high-resolution MR imaging at 1. 5T. Radiology. 1986;161:761-5. CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar22. MODIC M, MASARYK T, BOUMPHREY F, GOORMASTIC M, and BELL G. Lumbar herniated disk disease and canal stenosis: prospective evaluation by surface coil MR, CT and myelography. Am J Neuroradiol. 1986;7:757-65. Google Scholar23. MODIC M, MASARYK T, MULOPULOS G, BUNDSCHUH C, HANS J, and BOHLMAN H. Cervical radiculopathy: prospective evaluation with surface coil MR imaging, CT with metrizamide, and metrizamide myelography. Radiology. 1986;161:753-9. CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar24. FINEBERG H, BAUMAN R, and SOSMAN M. Computerized cranial tomography: effect on diagnostic and therapeutic plans. JAMA. 1977;238:224-7. CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar25. SCHWARTZ J. Evaluating diagnostic tests: what is done—what needs to be done [Editorial]. J Gen Intern Med. 1986;1:266-7. CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar26. LUSTED L. American College of Radiology study of the efficacy of diagnostic radiologic procedures: final report on diagnostic efficacy. Chicago: American College of Radiology; 1977. Google Scholar27. SACKETT D. Rules of evidence and clinical recommendations of the use of antithrombotic agents. Chest. 1986;89[Suppl 2]:2S-3S. CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar28. . Clinical Application of Magnetic Resonance Imaging. Chicago: American College of Radiology; 1984. Google Scholar29. . CEAP Recommendations 1981-1986. Philadelphia: American College of Physicians; 1987. Google Scholar30. JONAS S. A proposed method for using a reimbursement moratorium to encourage recruitment for a randomized study of carotid endarterectomy. Stroke. 1986;17:1335-6. CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar This content is PDF only. To continue reading please click on the PDF icon. Author, Article, and Disclosure InformationAuthors: DANIEL L. KENT, M.D.; ERIC B. LARSON, M.D., M.P.H. PreviousarticleNextarticle Advertisement FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Metrics Cited byEvidence-Based ImagingThe Challenge of Clinical Radiology ResearchEffectiveness of current technology in the diagnosis and management of lower gastrointestinal hemorrhageEvaluation of the diagnostic accuracy of MR imaging at 0.3 T, based on clinical follow up of 3262 examinationsCarotid colour DopplerPrimary or Depressive Dementia: Mental Status ScreeningCost effectiveness of magnetic resonance imaging in the neurosciences.Evaluation of the Protected Brush Catheter and Bronchoalveolar Lavage in the Diagnosis of Nosocomial PneumoniaMRI in the management of suspected cervical spondylotic myelopathy.Comparison of magnetic resonance imaging and computed tomography in suspected lesions in the posterior cranial fossa.New technology for old?An evaluation of magnetic resonance imaging at The Royal North Shore Hospital of Sydney, 1986–1987 (for editorial comment, see page 3)Primary Care and Diagnostic Testing Outside the Hospital 1 May 1988Volume 108, Issue 5Page: 759-761KeywordsMagnetic resonance imaging ePublished: 1 December 2008 Issue Published: 1 May 1988 PDF downloadLoading ...