Download PDF
Semin Musculoskelet Radiol 2017; 21(01): 017-022
DOI: 10.1055/s-0036-1597250
Review Article
Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

Comparative Effectiveness Research in Musculoskeletal Imaging

Shadpour Demehri
1   Russell H. Morgan Department of Radiology and Radiological Science, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland
,
Michael P. Recht
2   Department of Radiology, NYU School of Medicine, New York, New York
,
Christoph I. Lee
3   Department of Radiology, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, Washington
4   Department of Health Services, University of Washington School of Public Health, Seattle, Washington
5   Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Hutchinson Institute for Cancer Outcomes Research, Seattle, Washington
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
02 March 2017 (online)

Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

The primary goal of comparative effectiveness research (CER) is to define the optimal choice among alternative diagnostic and interventional strategies for a given clinical scenario among major stakeholders in the health care system. In an era where health care decision makers are demanding greater evidence of improved patient outcomes from the use of medical technologies, musculoskeletal (MSK) imagers must be more engaged in generating quality CER. We provide an overview of CER and its expanding role in U.S. health care, the current funding environment for CER and MSK imaging, potential areas for CER in MSK radiology, and a discussion of foreseeable challenges for CER in MSK imaging.

Keywords

comparative effectiveness research - musculoskeletal imaging - patient-centered radiology - outcomes research - cost-effectiveness analysis
 

  • References

  • 1 The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Public Law 111–148 124 Stat. 119. Washington, DC: The 111th U.S. Congress, 2010
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Tunis SR, Benner J, McClellan M. Comparative effectiveness research: Policy context, methods development and research infrastructure. Stat Med 2010; 29 (19) 1963-1976
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Chalkidou K. Comparative Effectiveness Review Within the U.K.'s National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Available at: http://www.commonwealthfund.org/∼/media/Files/Publications/Issue%20Brief/2009/Jul/Chalkidou/1296_Chalkidou_UK_CER_issue_brief_717.pdf . Accessed August 5, 2016
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Institute of Medicine. Initial National Priorities for Comparative Effectiveness Research. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 2009
    Google Scholar
  • 5 Pandharipande PV, Gazelle GS. Comparative effectiveness research: what it means for radiology. Radiology 2009; 253 (03) 600-605
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. Mission and Vision. Available from: http://www.pcori.org/about-us/mission-and-vision/ . Accessed August 3, 2016
    PubMed
  • 7 Fryback DG, Thornbury JR. The efficacy of diagnostic imaging. Med Decis Making 1991; 11 (02) 88-94
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Lee CI, Cevik M, Alagoz O. , et al. Comparative effectiveness of combined digital mammography and tomosynthesis screening for women with dense breasts. Radiology 2015; 274 (03) 772-780
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Sprague BL, Stout NK, Schechter C. , et al. Benefits, harms, and cost-effectiveness of supplemental ultrasonography screening for women with dense breasts. Ann Intern Med 2015; 162 (03) 157-166
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Otero HJ, Rybicki FJ, Greenberg D, Neumann PJ. Twenty years of cost-effectiveness analysis in medical imaging: are we improving?. Radiology 2008; 249 (03) 917-925
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Rutter CM, Knudsen AB, Pandharipande PV. Computer disease simulation models: integrating evidence for health policy. Acad Radiol 2011; 18 (09) 1077-1086
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Chandran A, Hyder AA, Peek-Asa C. The global burden of unintentional injuries and an agenda for progress. Epidemiol Rev 2010; 32: 110-120
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Serner A, Roemer FW, Hölmich P. , et al. Reliability of MRI assessment of acute musculotendinous groin injuries in athletes. Eur Radiol. 2016
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 de Jesus JO, Parker L, Frangos AJ, Nazarian LN. Accuracy of MRI, MR arthrography, and ultrasound in the diagnosis of rotator cuff tears: a meta-analysis. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2009; 192 (06) 1701-1707
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Demehri S, Hafezi-Nejad N, Carrino JA. Conventional and novel imaging modalities in osteoarthritis: current state of the evidence. Curr Opin Rheumatol 2015; 27 (03) 295-303
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Joshy S, Abdulkadir U, Chaganti S, Sullivan B, Hariharan K. Accuracy of MRI scan in the diagnosis of ligamentous and chondral pathology in the ankle. Foot Ankle Surg 2010; 16 (02) 78-80
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Nikken JJ, Oei EH, Ginai AZ. , et al. Acute peripheral joint injury: cost and effectiveness of low-field-strength MR imaging—results of randomized controlled trial. Radiology 2005; 236 (03) 958-967
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Pappou IP, Basel J, Deal DN. Scapholunate ligament injuries: a review of current concepts. Hand (NY) 2013; 8 (02) 146-156
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Kitay A, Wolfe SW. Scapholunate instability: current concepts in diagnosis and management. J Hand Surg Am 2012; 37 (10) 2175-2196
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Hafezi-Nejad N, Carrino JA, Eng J. , et al. Scapholunate interosseous ligament tears: diagnostic performance of 1.5 T, 3 T MRI, and MR arthrography—a systematic review and meta-analysis. Acad Radiol 2016; 23 (09) 1091-1103
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Losina E, Walensky RP, Reichmann WM. , et al. Impact of obesity and knee osteoarthritis on morbidity and mortality in older Americans. Ann Intern Med 2011; 154 (04) 217-226
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Parmet S, Lynm C, Glass RM. JAMA patient page. Osteoarthritis of the knee. JAMA 2003; 289 (08) 1068
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Wang Y, Tonkin A, Jones G. , et al. Does statin use have a disease modifying effect in symptomatic knee osteoarthritis? Study protocol for a randomised controlled trial. Trials 2015; 16: 584
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Fayad LM, Jacobs MA, Wang X, Carrino JA, Bluemke DA. Musculoskeletal tumors: how to use anatomic, functional, and metabolic MR techniques. Radiology 2012; 265 (02) 340-356
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Rao M, Concannon TW, Iovin R. , et al. Identification of topics for comparative effectiveness systematic reviews in the field of cancer imaging. J Comp Eff Res 2013; 2 (05) 483-495
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Link TM. Osteoporosis imaging: state of the art and advanced imaging. Radiology 2012; 263 (01) 3-17
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Guglielmi G, Muscarella S, Bazzocchi A. Integrated imaging approach to osteoporosis: state-of-the-art review and update. Radiographics 2011; 31 (05) 1343-1364
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Filler AG, Maravilla KR, Tsuruda JS. MR neurography and muscle MR imaging for image diagnosis of disorders affecting the peripheral nerves and musculature. Neurol Clin 2004; 22 (03) 643-682 , vi–vii
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Thawait SK, Chaudhry V, Thawait GK. , et al. High-resolution MR neurography of diffuse peripheral nerve lesions. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2011; 32 (08) 1365-1372
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Chhabra A, Belzberg AJ, Rosson GD. , et al. Impact of high resolution 3 tesla MR neurography (MRN) on diagnostic thinking and therapeutic patient management. Eur Radiol 2016; 26 (05) 1235-1244
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Rawson JV. Comparative effectiveness research in radiology: patients, physicians and policy makers. Acad Radiol 2011; 18 (09) 1067-1071
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Value of Imaging through Comparative Effectiveness (VOICE) Research Program. Overview available at: http://www.med.nyu.edu/courses/cme/voice . Accessed August 3, 2016
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Lee CI, Jarvik JG. Patient-centered outcomes research in radiology: trends in funding and methodology. Acad Radiol 2014; 21 (09) 1156-1161
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar