Measuring the effects of imaging: An evaluative framework
References (60)
- et al.
Evaluating the clinical efficacy of diagnostic imaging procedures
European Journal of Radiology
(1992) - et al.
Medical evaluation of health care technologies
Evaluation in medicine
- et al.
Computerized cranial tomography: Effect on diagnostic and therapeutic plans
Journal of the American Medical Association
(1977) - et al.
Disease, level of impact and quality of research methods: three dimensions of clinical efficacy assessment applied to magnetic resonance imaging
Investigative Radiology
(1992) Clinical efficacy of diagnostic imaging: love it or leave it
Americal Journal of Roentgenology
(1994)- et al.
Effectiveness and efficiency under competition: the Cochrane test
British Medical Journal
Cost-benefit and cost-effectiveness analyses of magnetic resonance imaging
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care
Guidelines for the clinical and economic assessment of health technologies: The case of magnetic resonance
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care
Methodologic considerations in planning clinical trials of cost-effectiveness of magnetic resonance imaging
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care
The evaluation of computerized tomography: A review of research methods
Who needs high technology?
British Journal of Radiology
Evaluating the quality of medical care
Millbank Memorial Fund Quarterly
Medical Audit: A First Report. What. why and how?
Cat fever
New England Journal of Medicine
Evaluating diagnostic technologies
American College of Radiology Diagnostic Efficacy Studies
American Journal of Roentgenology
Safety aspects of magnetic resonance examinations
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care
Documents of the NRPB
Limits on patient and volunteer exposure during clinical magnetic resonance diagnostic procedures
Documents of the NRPB
High resolution magnetic resonance imaging of the knee joint: normal anatomy
American Journal of Roentgenology
Cited by (124)
How does post-mortem imaging compare to autopsy, is this a relevant question?
2016, Journal of Forensic Radiology and ImagingCitation Excerpt :An evaluative framework therefore must decide whether the test identifies the abnormalities, makes a diagnosis, displaces or improves upon other tests, contributes to service delivery and improves on outcomes for the whole population. Not surprisingly, most diagnostic tests have good evidence for their “efficacy” but often very little on their impact or effectiveness [3]. Focusing purely on technical performance can lead to failure to address the bigger picture and to incorrect assumptions about the new test.
CT head reporting by radiographers: Results of an accredited postgraduate programme
2015, RadiographyCitation Excerpt :That is not to say that efficacy studies solely rely on reporting, it is but one part of a larger system of patient clinical examinations (blood tests, bacterial cultures, biopsies) that affect patient outcomes. Key points of the efficacy chart include the technical quality of the images which have the potential to affect reporting abilities,38 the CT report, the post report effect on altered patient therapeutic plans to improve mortality/morbidity, and final patient outcomes including changes to or new treatments, avoidance of surgery or other diagnostic tests, hospital stay, or abandonment of clinical treatment.17,39 The mean agreement rate of 90.6% (95% CI 88.1–90.8%) achieved by the candidates, for normal and abnormal CT head examinations in this study also equates acceptably to the variance in concordance and major/minor discordance rates in studies by McCarron21 and Erly.22
Methods and Challenges in Quantitative Imaging Biomarker Development
2015, Academic Radiology