Abstract
Driven by rising medical costs and pressure to practice evidence-based medicine, practicing emergency radiologists are often required to perform technology assessments. These assessments are not only crucial in developing practice guidelines and determining new equipment purchases, but are important in determining the most appropriate strategy for imaging individual patients to evaluate specific pathologic conditions.
Reliable assessments require that radiologists address three issues: (a) the disease (or indication) being evaluated, (b) the imaging modality, and (c) the desired assessment level. Using a structured approach, practicing radiologists can review existing information, determine its validity, and use this information to make informed judgments on the utility of new imaging technologies.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Royal HD. Technology assessment: Scientific challenges. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1994;163:503–7.
Solomon MJ, McLeod RS. Clinical assessment of biomedical technology. Dis Colon Rectum 1993;36:301–7.
Kircher LT, Swartzel RL. Spontaneous pneumothorax and its treament. JAMA 1954:155:24–9.
Fleischner FG, Pulmonary embolism. Clin Radiol 1962;13:169–82.
Kent DL, Larson EB. Disease, level of impact, and quality of research methods: three dimensions of clinical efficacy assessment applied to magnetic resonance imaging. Invest Radiol 1992;27:245–54.
Ma OJ, Mateer JR. Trauma ultrasound examination versus chest radiography in the detectionof hemothorax. Ann Emerg Med 1997;29:312–6.
Thornbury JR. Clinical efficacy of diagnostic imaging: love it or leave it. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1994;162:1–8.
Copeland PM. The incidentally discovered adrenal mass. Ann Surg 1984;199:116–22.
Grzybowski M, Younger JG. Statistical methodology. III. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves. Acad Emerg Med 1997;4:818–26.
Kramer MS, Feinstein AR. Clinical biostatistics. LIV. The biostatistics of concordance. Clin Pharmacol Ther 1981;29:111–23.
Fineberg HV, Bauman R, Sosman M. Computerized cranial tomography: effect on diagnostic and therapeutic plans. JAMA 1977;238:224–7.
Stein SC, Ross SE. The value of computed tomographic scans in patients with low-risk head injuries. Neurosurgery 1990;26:638–40.
Benoliel R, Eliav E, Elishoov H, Sharav Y. Diagnosis and treatment of persistent pain after trauma to the head and neck. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1994;52:1138–47.
Black WC, Welch HG. Advances in diagnostic imaging and overestimations of disease prevalence and the benefits of therapy. N Engl J Med 1993;328:1237–43.
Fletcher RH, Fletcher SW, Wagner EH. Clinical epidemiology: the essentials. ed 2. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins, 1988.
McNeil BJ, Adelstein SJ. Determining the value of diagnostic and screening tests. J Nucl Med 1976;17:439–48.
Poynard T, Chaput JC, Etienne JP. Relations between effectiveness of a diagnostic test, prevalence of the disease, and percentages of uninterpretable results: an example in the diagnosis of jaundice. Med Decis Making 1982;2:285–97.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Mower, W.R. Technology assessment in emergency radiology. Emergency Radiology 5, 231–236 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02749157
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02749157