Display Settings:

Format

Send to:

Choose Destination
See comment in PubMed Commons below
Invest Radiol. 1993 Feb;28(2):155-61.

Technology assessment in diagnostic imaging. A proposal for a phased approach to evaluating radiology research.

Author information

  • 1Department of Diagnostic Imaging, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT 06510.

Abstract

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES:

The authors propose an objective basis for critical evaluation of research trends and define and analyze a sample of radiology studies according to research phase.

METHODS:

A random sample of 146 original diagnostic studies from two radiology journals was categorized according to phase, modality, and design by three physician reviewers, collated with a microcomputer database, and analyzed using an SAS program.

RESULTS:

Phase 1 studies (technical evaluation) constituted 18.5% of publications: phase 2 (standardization and tissue characterization), 10.3%; phase 3 (spectrum of appearances), 40.4%; phase 4 (diagnostic efficacy), 21.2%; and phase 5 (clinical evaluation), 9.6%. Of 48 diagnostic efficacy studies, 42% were prospective (versus 35% for the total sample), 38% were controlled (median sample size, 53 [versus 30 for the total sample]). Only 27% of the 48 diagnostic efficacy studies were externally funded. Research in magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), which comprised 45% of all publications, was oriented toward phase 1 (32%) rather than phase 5 studies (0%). Phase 5 studies were the focus of 18% and 8% of ultrasound (US) and computed tomography (CT) studies, respectively. There were more prospective, controlled efficacy studies in US than in MRI or CT.

CONCLUSIONS:

Analyses of research trends will be facilitated by use of a standard taxonomy which adopts a modality-based, phased approach.

PMID:
8444573
[PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
PubMed Commons home

PubMed Commons

0 comments
How to join PubMed Commons

    Supplemental Content

    Loading ...
    Write to the Help Desk