Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

Technology assessment for radiologists.

Jonathan H Sunshine1, Kimberly E Applegate

  • 1Department of Research, American College of Radiology, 1891 Preston White Dr, Reston, VA 20191, USA. jonathans@acr.org

Radiology
|January 31, 2004
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Impact of contrast agents on organ dosimetry in paediatric diagnostic fluoroscopy: the upper gastrointestinal series.

Physics in medicine and biology·2026
Same author

The ICRP, MELODI, and ALLIANCE workshop on effects of ionizing radiation exposure in offspring and next generations: a summary of discussions.

International journal of radiation biology·2024
Same author

Radiological protection in human research ethics using a case study: toward update of the ICRP Publication 62.

Journal of radiological protection : official journal of the Society for Radiological Protection·2023
Same author

The International Commission on Radiological Protection: Working Toward Keeping Recommendations Fit for Purpose.

Journal of the American College of Radiology : JACR·2023
Same author

A Multimedia Strategy to Integrate Introductory Broad-Based Radiation Science Education in US Medical Schools.

Journal of the American College of Radiology : JACR·2022
Same author

Age effects on radiation response: summary of a recent symposium and future perspectives.

International journal of radiation biology·2022
Same journal

Erratum for: Prediction of Lobar Emphysema Progression with a CT-Based Foundational Model.

Radiology·2026
Same journal

Erratum for: Associations of MRI-derived Paraspinal IMAT and LMM with Cardiometabolic Risk Factors: Results from a German Cohort.

Radiology·2026
Same journal

Erratum for: Blue Rubber Bleb Nevus Syndrome.

Radiology·2026
Same journal

Redefining the Clinical Role of MRI in Endometrial Cancer Staging.

Radiology·2026
Same journal

To Ablate or Not to Ablate: The Colorectal Liver Metastasis Question.

Radiology·2026
Same journal

The Limits of Radiologic Categorization in Pulmonary Nonsolid Nodules.

Radiology·2026
See all related articles

This article details health technology assessment for diagnostic imaging, offering a framework for evaluating test efficacy and cost-effectiveness. It emphasizes rigorous study design for accurate health technology assessment and cost-benefit analysis.

Area of Science:

  • Health Technology Assessment
  • Diagnostic Imaging Evaluation

Background:

  • Health technology assessment systematically evaluates healthcare interventions for safety, efficacy, and cost.
  • Diagnostic imaging requires specific evaluation frameworks to determine its true clinical value.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To outline key aspects of health technology assessment for diagnostic imaging.
  • To present a framework for evaluating imaging test efficacy and its relation to patient outcomes and costs.
  • To discuss methods for assessing diagnostic imaging and screening tests.

Main Methods:

  • Conceptual framework for a hierarchy of efficacy levels in imaging test evaluation.
  • Description of decision analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis for quantitative modeling.
  • Outline of design and operational considerations for experimental studies in health technology assessment.

Related Experiment Videos

Main Results:

  • A framework linking imaging test performance (distinguishing disease) to broader health outcomes and cost-effectiveness.
  • Identification of quantitative modeling techniques (decision analysis, cost-effectiveness analysis) for core HTA questions.
  • Distinction between evaluation requirements for diagnostic tests in symptomatic patients versus screening tests in asymptomatic populations.

Conclusions:

  • Effective health technology assessment of diagnostic imaging requires a hierarchical approach to efficacy.
  • Quantitative methods like decision analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis are crucial for evaluating imaging interventions.
  • Specific considerations and methods are necessary for assessing diagnostic imaging in symptomatic versus asymptomatic populations (screening).