For Publishers
DiscoveryMetadataPeer reviewHostingPublishing
For Researchers
JoinPublishReviewCollect
Register
Blog
About
Search
Advanced search
My ScienceOpen
Search
For Publishers
For Researchers
Blog
About
6
views
34
references
 Top references
cited by
29
    
0 reviews
 Review
0
comments
 Comment
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      1,674
      similar
       All similar
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: not found
      • Article: not found

      Value of MRI in medicine: More than just another test? : Value of MRI in Medicine

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          There is increasing scrutiny from healthcare organizations towards the utility and associated costs of imaging. MRI has traditionally been used as a high-end modality, and although shown extremely important for many types of clinical scenarios, it has been suggested as too expensive by some. This editorial will try and explain how value should be addressed and gives some insights and practical examples of how value of MRI can be increased. It requires a global effort to increase accessibility, value for money, and impact on patient management. We hope this editorial sheds some light and gives some indications of where the field may wish to address some of its research to proactively demonstrate the value of MRI.

          Related collections

          Most cited references34

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Results of the two incidence screenings in the National Lung Screening Trial.

          Denise R Aberle, Sarah DeMello, Christine D Berg … (2013)
          The National Lung Screening Trial was conducted to determine whether three annual screenings (rounds T0, T1, and T2) with low-dose helical computed tomography (CT), as compared with chest radiography, could reduce mortality from lung cancer. We present detailed findings from the first two incidence screenings (rounds T1 and T2). We evaluated the rate of adherence of the participants to the screening protocol, the results of screening and downstream diagnostic tests, features of the lung-cancer cases, and first-line treatments, and we estimated the performance characteristics of both screening methods. At the T1 and T2 rounds, positive screening results were observed in 27.9% and 16.8% of participants in the low-dose CT group and in 6.2% and 5.0% of participants in the radiography group, respectively. In the low-dose CT group, the sensitivity was 94.4%, the specificity was 72.6%, the positive predictive value was 2.4%, and the negative predictive value was 99.9% at T1; at T2, the positive predictive value increased to 5.2%. In the radiography group, the sensitivity was 59.6%, the specificity was 94.1%, the positive predictive value was 4.4%, and the negative predictive value was 99.8% at T1; both the sensitivity and the positive predictive value increased at T2. Among lung cancers of known stage, 87 (47.5%) were stage IA and 57 (31.1%) were stage III or IV in the low-dose CT group at T1; in the radiography group, 31 (23.5%) were stage IA and 78 (59.1%) were stage III or IV at T1. These differences in stage distribution between groups persisted at T2. Low-dose CT was more sensitive in detecting early-stage lung cancers, but its measured positive predictive value was lower than that of radiography. As compared with radiography, the two annual incidence screenings with low-dose CT resulted in a decrease in the number of advanced-stage cancers diagnosed and an increase in the number of early-stage lung cancers diagnosed. (Funded by the National Cancer Institute; NLST ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00047385.).
          Article 0 comments Cited 156 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            The Efficacy of Diagnostic Imaging

            D G Fryback, J Thornbury (1991)
            Article 0 comments Cited 155 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Variability in reexcision following breast conservation surgery.

              Laurence E. McCahill, Richard M. Single, Erin Aiello Bowles … (2012)
              Health care reform calls for increasing physician accountability and transparency of outcomes. Partial mastectomy is the most commonly performed procedure for invasive breast cancer and often requires reexcision. Variability in reexcision might be reflective of the quality of care. To assess hospital and surgeon-specific variation in reexcision rates following partial mastectomy. An observational study of breast surgery performed between 2003 and 2008 intended to evaluate variability in breast cancer surgical care outcomes and evaluate potential quality measures of breast cancer surgery. Women with invasive breast cancer undergoing partial mastectomy from 4 institutions were studied (1 university hospital [University of Vermont] and 3 large health plans [Kaiser Permanente Colorado, Group Health, and Marshfield Clinic]). Data were obtained from electronic medical records and chart abstraction of surgical, pathology, radiology, and outpatient records, including detailed surgical margin status. Logistic regression including surgeon-level random effects was used to identify predictors of reexcision. Incidence of reexcision. A total of 2206 women with 2220 invasive breast cancers underwent partial mastectomy and 509 patients (22.9%; 95% CI, 21.2%-24.7%) underwent reexcision (454 patients [89.2%; 95% CI, 86.5%-91.9%] had 1 reexcision, 48 [9.4%; 95% CI, 6.9%-12.0%] had 2 reexcisions, and 7 [1.4%; 95% CI, 0.4%-2.4%] had 3 reexcisions). Among all patients undergoing initial partial mastectomy, total mastectomy was performed in 190 patients (8.5%; 95% CI, 7.2%-9.5%). Reexcision rates for margin status following initial surgery were 85.9% (95% CI, 82.0%-89.8%) for initial positive margins, 47.9% (95% CI, 42.0%-53.9%) for less than 1.0 mm margins, 20.2% (95% CI, 15.3%-25.0%) for 1.0 to 1.9 mm margins, and 6.3% (95% CI, 3.2%-9.3%) for 2.0 to 2.9 mm margins. For patients with negative margins, reexcision rates varied widely among surgeons (range, 0%-70%; P = .003) and institutions (range, 1.7%-20.9%; P < .001). Reexcision rates were not associated with surgeon procedure volume after adjusting for case mix (P = .92). Substantial surgeon and institutional variation were observed in reexcision following partial mastectomy in women with invasive breast cancer.
              Article 0 comments Cited 149 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
                Bookmark
                All references

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Title: Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging
                Abbreviated Title: J. Magn. Reson. Imaging
                Publisher: Wiley
                ISSN: 10531807
                Publication date (Electronic): August 25 2018
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Edinburgh Imaging facility QMRI; University of Edinburgh; Edinburgh UK
                [2 ]Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology; University of Aachen; Aachen Germany
                [3 ]Department of Radiology; University of Utah; Salt Lake City Utah USA
                [4 ]Royal Melbourne Hospital; University of Melbourne; Melbourne Australia
                [5 ]Department of Radiology; Mayo Clinic; Rochester Minnesota USA
                [6 ]Huaxi MR Research Center (HMRRC), Department of Radiology; West China Hospital of Sichuan University; Chengdu Sichuan China
                [7 ]Department of Radiology, Engineering and Orthopaedic Surgery; Stanford University; Stanford California USA
                [8 ]Departments of Radiology, Urology and Biomedical Imaging, Case Western Reserve University; University Hospitals of Cleveland; Cleveland Ohio USA
                [9 ]Department of Medical Imaging and Radiology; University College Hospital NHS Trust; London UK
                [10 ]Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine; University Medical Centre; Utrecht The Netherlands
                [11 ]Department of Neuroradiology; National Neuroscience Institute and Duke NUS Medical School; Singapore Singapore
                [12 ]Department of Imaging Research; Barrow Neurological Institute; Phoenix Arizona USA
                [13 ]Departments of Radiology, Medical Physics, Biomedical Engineering, Medicine and Emergency Medicine; University of Madison; Madison Wisconsin USA
                [14 ]Department of Radiology; McGill University Health Center; Montreal Canada
                [15 ]Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine; Erasmus Medical Center; Rotterdam the Netherlands
                [16 ]Department of Radiology; New York University Langone Health; New York New York USA
                [17 ]Department of Radiology; Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School; Boston Massachusetts USA
                [18 ]Department of Radiology; Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center; New York New York USA
                [19 ]Department of Radiology; Henan Provincial People's Hospital; Zhengzhou Henan China
                Article
                DOI: 10.1002/jmri.26211
                PMC ID: 7036752
                PubMed ID: 30145852
                SO-VID: 754ae97a-1e57-424c-aaad-3fa3dd735ce6
                Copyright © © 2018
                License:

                http://doi.wiley.com/10.1002/tdm_license_1.1

                http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor

                History

                Data availability:

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_

                Similar content1,674

                See all similar

                Cited by28

                See all cited by

                Most referenced authors789

                See all reference authors