ReviewJournal of cardiovascular magnetic resonance : official journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance2013
Cost-effectiveness analysis for imaging techniques with a focus on cardiovascular magnetic resonance.
Review in Journal of cardiovascular magnetic resonance : official journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
17 citing papers in PubMed.
- Review
- Abnormal myocardial perfusion reserve and myocardial infarction determine cardiovascular outcomes in type 2 diabetes mellitus.European heart journal. Cardiovascular Imaging · 2026Article
- Cardiac magnetic resonance versus echocardiography: An analysis examining risk reclassification by left ventricular ejection fraction and cost burden analysis.Journal of cardiovascular magnetic resonance : official journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance · 2025Article
- True cost estimation of common imaging procedures for cost-effectiveness analysis - insights from a Singapore hospital emergency department.European journal of radiology open · 2024Article
- The Merits, Limitations, and Future Directions of Cost-Effectiveness Analysis in Cardiac MRI with a Focus on Coronary Artery Disease: A Literature Review.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2022Review
- Sustainable low-field cardiovascular magnetic resonance in changing healthcare systems.European heart journal. Cardiovascular Imaging · 2022Review
- Evidence-based cardiovascular magnetic resonance cost-effectiveness calculator for the detection of significant coronary artery disease.Journal of cardiovascular magnetic resonance : official journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance · 2022Article
- Should CMR be the default imaging modality in clinical trials for heart failure?Cardiovascular diagnosis and therapy · 2020Article
- Should everyone have an MRI in heart failure?Cardiovascular diagnosis and therapy · 2020Article
- The growth and evolution of cardiovascular magnetic resonance: a 20-year history of the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance (SCMR) annual scientific sessions.Journal of cardiovascular magnetic resonance : official journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance · 2018Review
- Cost-minimization analysis of three decision strategies for cardiac revascularization: results of the "suspected CAD" cohort of the european cardiovascular magnetic resonance registry.Journal of cardiovascular magnetic resonance : official journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance · 2016Article
- Cost-effectiveness modelling in diagnostic imaging: a stepwise approach.European radiology · 2015Review
- Review of Journal of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance 2014.Journal of cardiovascular magnetic resonance : official journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance · 2015Review
- Incremental cost-effectiveness of dobutamine stress cardiac magnetic resonance imaging in patients at intermediate risk for coronary artery disease.Clinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society · 2015Article
- Review of Journal of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance 2013.Journal of cardiovascular magnetic resonance : official journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance · 2014Review
- EHR in emergency rooms: exploring the effect of key information components on main complaints.Journal of medical systems · 2014Article
- Comparative cost-effectiveness analyses of cardiovascular magnetic resonance and coronary angiography combined with fractional flow reserve for the diagnosis of coronary artery disease.Journal of cardiovascular magnetic resonance : official journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
With the need for healthcare cost-containment, increased scrutiny will be placed on new medical therapeutic or diagnostic technologies. Several challenges exist for a new diagnostic test to demonstrate cost-effectiveness. New diagnostic tests differ from therapeutic procedures due to the fact that diagnostic tests do not generally directly affect long-term patient outcomes. Instead, the results of diagnostic tests can influence management decisions for patients and by this route, diagnostic tests indirectly affect long-term outcomes. The benefits from a specific diagnostic technology depend therefore not only on its performance characteristics, but also on other factors such as prevalence of disease, and effectiveness of existing treatments for the disease of interest. We review the concepts and theories of cost-effectiveness analyses (CEA) as they apply to diagnostic tests in general. The limitations of CEA across different study designs and geographic regions are discussed, and we also examine the strengths and weakness of the existing publications where CMR was the focus of CEA compared to other diagnostic options.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.