Addressing "waste" in diagnostic imaging: Some implications of comparative effectiveness research

Abstract

Comparative effectiveness research is intended to provide evidence to improve patient outcomes through the use of the most appropriate health technology affordable. The authors present 5 case studies, focusing on the use of plain radiography in common clinical scenarios, to illustrate the considerable scope for comparative effectiveness research within medical imaging and the different levels of evidence currently in existence to guide the improved use of medical imaging. These are blunt ankle injury, breast cancer follow-up, low back pain, routine daily chest x-rays in intensive care, and screening for breast cancer. Although there are established models for evaluating new technologies, especially pharmaceuticals, against the most commonly used current technology, the evaluation of technologies in current clinical practice is in an early phase of development. Because evaluation resources are limited, one major challenge is developing ways to identify established technologies for evaluation to refine the indications for their use. A set of criteria with which to identify established technologies that may not be delivering value for money is described, and their use is illustrated in relation to the 5 case studies. These criteria could be incorporated into literature search strategies, stakeholder consultations, and utilization scanning. Once identified, these technologies should be formally evaluated for their performance in improving patient health without restricting the availability of other effective interventions.