Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39240460›Full record

ArticleJapanese journal of radiology2025

A cross-national investigation of CT, MRI, PET, mammography, and radiation therapy resources and utilization.

Takahiro Aoyama, Yutaro Koide, Hidetoshi Shimizu, Atsushi Urikura, Tomoki Kitagawa, Shingo Hashimoto, Hiroyuki Tachibana, Takeshi Kodaira

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Japanese journal of radiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Takahiro AoyamaDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Aichi Cancer Center, 1-1 Kanokoden, Chikusa-ku, Nagoya, Aichi, 464-8681, Japan. aoyamat@aichi-cc.jp.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8423-6509
Yutaro KoideDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Aichi Cancer Center, 1-1 Kanokoden, Chikusa-ku, Nagoya, Aichi, 464-8681, Japan.
Hidetoshi ShimizuDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Aichi Cancer Center, 1-1 Kanokoden, Chikusa-ku, Nagoya, Aichi, 464-8681, Japan.
Atsushi UrikuraDepartment of Radiological Technology, Radiological Diagnosis, National Cancer Center Hospital, 5-1-1 Tsukiji, Chuo-ku, Tokyo, 104-0045, Japan.
Tomoki KitagawaDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Aichi Cancer Center, 1-1 Kanokoden, Chikusa-ku, Nagoya, Aichi, 464-8681, Japan.
Shingo HashimotoDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Aichi Cancer Center, 1-1 Kanokoden, Chikusa-ku, Nagoya, Aichi, 464-8681, Japan.
Hiroyuki TachibanaDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Aichi Cancer Center, 1-1 Kanokoden, Chikusa-ku, Nagoya, Aichi, 464-8681, Japan.
Takeshi KodairaDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Aichi Cancer Center, 1-1 Kanokoden, Chikusa-ku, Nagoya, Aichi, 464-8681, Japan.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThis study aimed to analyze the domestic and international landscape of imaging diagnostics and treatments, focusing on Japan, to provide current insights for policymaking, clinical practice enhancement, and international collaboration.

methodsData from 1996 to 2021 were collected from Japan's Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare database for medical device counts of CT, MRI, PET, mammography, and radiotherapy. The National Database of Health Insurance Claims and Specific Health Checkups of Japan was utilized for examination numbers. An international comparison was made with data from 41 countries using the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) database.

resultsThe data included a total of 108,596 CT devices, 47,233 MRI devices, 2998 PET devices, 20,641 MMG devices, and 8023 RT devices during the survey period. Upon international comparison, Japan ranked first in CT and MRI devices per million people and second in examination numbers per 1000 people. The number of PET devices per million people exceeded OECD averages; however, the number of examinations per 1000 people was below the OECD average in 2020 (Japan: 4.0, OECD: 4.9). Although Japan exceeded OECD averages in mammography device counts (Japan: 33.8, OECD: 24.5 in 2020), radiotherapy device counts were similar to OECD averages (Japan: 8.3, OECD: 7.9 in 2020).

conclusionWe have analyzed the utilization of equipment in the context of diagnostic imaging and radiotherapy in Japan. Since the initial survey year, all devices have shown an upward trend. However, it is essential not only to increase the number of devices and examinations but also to address the chronic shortage of radiologists and allied health professionals. Based on the insights gained from this study, understanding the actual status of diagnostic imaging and radiation therapy equipment is critical for grasping the domestic situation and may contribute to improving the quality of healthcare in Japan.

Indexed as

Magnetic Resonance ImagingMammographyPositron-Emission TomographyTomography, X-Ray ComputedDiagnostic ImagingFemaleHumansJapanRadiotherapyDiagnostic imagingHealthcare policyInternational comparisonMedical device resourcesRadiotherapy

Identifiers

PMID39240460

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.