Cost-Effectiveness of Mobile versus Fixed Computed Tomography and Magnetic Resonance Imaging: A Systematic Review and Economic Evaluation
Abstract
Background: Mobile technologies are widely used in healthcare. The purpose of this study was to compare the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of fixed computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) with the mobile ones.
Methods: In this systematic review, PubMed, Cochrane Library, Scopus and CRD database were searched from 1995 to 2015. The data on safety and effectiveness of technologies were extracted from included studies. Because the review showed no significant differences in the performance of mobile CT and MRI compared to the fixed ones, then a cost minimization approach was used to explore the cost-effectiveness of three scenarios.
Results: Twenty two articles were included in the review that showed no statistically significant differences in the performance of mobile MRI and CT scan compared to the fixed ones. The cost minimization approach showed that the third scenario based on purchasing a common mobile MRI and CT scan; and using it by two or more hospitals that are in rational distance from each other is associated with the lowest costs, so it is the most cost-effectiveness strategy.
Conclusion: The performance of Mobile CT and mobile MRI is comparable to the fixed ones; and using a combined mobile CT and MRI by two or three hospitals is the most cost-effective approach.
2. Westbrook C,Talbot J (2018). MRI in practice. John Wiley & Sons.
3. [No authors listed] (1987). Technology on wheels: Evaluating the options. Health Technol, 1(6):231-8.
4. Fayad ZA, Fuster V, Nikolaou K, Becker C (2002). Computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging for noninvasive coronary angiography and plaque imaging: current and potential future concepts.. Circulation, 106(15):2026-34.
5. National Imaging Associates, Inc (2016). NIA Clinical Guidelines for Medical Necessity Review. Magellan Healthcare,1-659.
6. Demaerel P HR, Verstraete K, Bogaert J, et al. (2006). Magnetic Resonance Imaging Health Technology Assessment (HTA). Brussels: Belgian Health Care Knowledge Centre (KCE).
7. Reeve J, Baladi JF (1995). A comparison of fixed and mobile CT and MRI scanners. . Canadian Coordinating Office for Health Technology Assessment. National Library of Canada.
8. Canadian Coordinating Office for Health Technology Assessment (1994). Selected health technologies in Canada (Technology brief; Issue 5.3). Ottawa: Canadian Coordinating Office for Health Technology Assessment.
9. Butler WE, Piaggio CM, Constantinou C, et al (1998). A mobile computed tomographic scanner with intraoperative and intensive care unit applications. Neurosurgery, 42(6):1304-10.
10. Ebinger M, Fiebach JB, Audebert HJ (2015). Mobile computed tomography: prehospital diagnosis and treatment of stroke. Curr Opin Neurol, 28(1):4-9.
11. Gunnarsson T, Theodorsson A, Karlsson P, et al (2000). Mobile computerized tomography scanning in the neurosurgery intensive care unit: increase in patient safety and reduction of staff workload. J Neurosurg, 93(3):432-6.
12. Walter S, Kostopoulos P, Haass A, et al (2012). Diagnosis and treatment of patients with stroke in a mobile stroke unit versus in hospital: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet Neurol, 11(5):397-404.
13. Boulevard J B (2013). Patient Safety: Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI). Radiological Society of North America.
14. Mansori M. What is CT Scan and how is it work? (2012) IRAN: Iran ortoped; Available from: http://www.iranorthoped.ir/fa/news/1357
15. Kieso DE, Weygandt JJ, Warfield TD (2010). Intermediate accounting: IFRS edition. 3rd ed. John Wiley & Sons, USA, pp.: 201-305.
16. [No authors listed] (2011). Law for the Fifth Development Plan of the Islamic Republic of Iran: https://wipolex.wipo.int/en/legislation/details/14565
17. Shawi M Al, Watson T, Carlson J, Anthony L, Thomas M (2013). CT Scan Services In The Rural Setting, The Clinical Need And Cost Effectiveness: The Katherine Hospital Experience (Australia). The Internet Journal of Surgery, 30(1):1-4.
18. Tsang K I, Cheung TI, Liu H (2009). Mobile Computed Tomography Scanner for Head and Neck Imaging. Hong Kong: society of critical care medicine.
19. Matson M, Jarosz J, Gallacher D, et al (1999). Evaluation of head examinations produced with a mobile CT unit. Br J Radiol, 72(859):631-6.
20. Hartley D, Moscovice I (1996). The mobile hospital technology industry: focus on the computerized tomography scanner. J Rural Health, 12(3):225-34.
21. Teichgräber UK, Pinkernelle J, Jürgensen J-S, Ricke J, Kaisers U (2003). Portable computed tomography performed on the intensive care unit. Intensive Care Med, 29(3):491-5.
22. Adelman AM, Daly MP (2005). Initial evaluation of the patient with suspected dementia. Am Fam Physician, 71(9):1745-50.
23. Rumboldt Z, Huda W (2009). Review of Portable CT with Assessment of a Dedicated Head CT Scanner. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol, 30(9):1630-6.
| Files | ||
| Issue | Vol 48 No 8 (2019) | |
| Section | Review Article(s) | |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.18502/ijph.v48i8.2980 | |
| Keywords | ||
| computed tomography (CT) Magnetic Resonance Imaging Mobile technology Health technology assessment | ||
| Rights and permissions | |
|
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
