| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||||
Special Report |
1 From the Stanford Center for Biomedical Ethics, Department of Medicine (J.I., B.A.K., T.A.R., D.K.) and Department of Radiology (J.I., E.F., S.W.A.), Stanford University Medical Center, 701 Welch Rd, Stanford, CA 94304-5748; and the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, Calif (S.W.A.). Received August 28, 2002; revision requested October 25; final revision received February 26, 2003; accepted March 18. Supported by The Greenwall Foundation. Supported in part by the Stanford Medical Student Scholars Program. Address correspondence to J.I. (e-mail: illes@stanford.edu).
PURPOSE: To conduct an empirical analysis of self-referred whole-body computed tomography (CT) and develop a profile of the geographic and demographic distribution of centers, types of services and modalities, costs, and procedures for reporting results.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: An analysis was conducted of Web sites for imaging centers accepting self-referred patients identified by two widely used Internet search engines with large indexes. These Web sites were analyzed for geographic location, type of screening center, services, costs, and procedures for managing imaging results. Demographic data were extrapolated for analysis on the basis of center location. Descriptive statistics, such as frequencies, means, SDs, ranges, and CIs, were generated to describe the characteristics of the samples. Data were compared with national norms by using a distribution-free method for calculating a 95% CI (P < .05) for the median.
RESULTS: Eighty-eight centers identified with the search methods were widely distributed across the United States, with a concentration on both coasts. Demographic analysis further situated them in areas of the country characterized by a population that consisted largely of European Americans (P < .05) and individuals of higher education (P < .05) and socioeconomic status (P < .05). Forty-seven centers offered whole-body screening; heart and lung examinations were most frequently offered. Procedures for reporting results were highly variable.
CONCLUSION: The geographic distribution of the centers suggests target populations of educated health-conscious consumers who can assume high out-of-pocket costs. Guidelines developed from within the profession and further research are needed to ensure that benefits of these services outweigh risks to individuals and the health care system.
© RSNA, 2003
Index terms: Cancer screening • Computed tomography (CT) • Economics, medical
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  I. M. Burger, N. E. Kass, J. H. Sunshine, and S. S. Siegelman The Use of CT for Screening: A National Survey of Radiologists' Activities and Attitudes Radiology, July 1, 2008; 248(1): 160 - 168. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 E J HALL and D J BRENNER Cancer risks from diagnostic radiology Br. J. Radiol., May 1, 2008; 81(965): 362 - 378. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 U Shaikh and H. Lewis-Jones VOMIT victim of medical investigative technology BMJ, January 5, 2008; 336(7634): 8 - 8. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 N. A. Obuchowski, P. Schoenhagen, M. T. Modic, M. Meziane, and G. T. Budd Incidence of Advanced Symptomatic Disease as Primary Endpoint in Screening and Prevention Trials Am. J. Roentgenol., July 1, 2007; 189(1): 19 - 23. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
C. T. Kolber, G. Zipp, D. Glendinning, and J. J. Mitchell Patient Expectations of Full-Body CT Screening Am. J. Roentgenol., March 1, 2007; 188(3): W297 - W304. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
European Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Effect of Directed Training on Reader Performance for CT Colonography: Multicenter Study Radiology, January 1, 2007; 242(1): 152 - 161. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
C. I. Lee, H. V. Flaster, A. H. Haims, E. P. Monico, and H. P. Forman Diagnostic CT scans: institutional informed consent guidelines and practices at academic medical centers. Am. J. Roentgenol., August 1, 2006; 187(2): 282 - 287. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 P. G. O'Malley Atherosclerosis imaging of asymptomatic individuals: is the sales cart before the evidence horse? Arch Intern Med, May 22, 2006; 166(10): 1065 - 1068. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
K. Muchantef and H. P. Forman Cost Accounting in Radiology: New Directions and Importance for Policy Am. J. Roentgenol., December 1, 2005; 185(6): 1404 - 1407. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
C. D. Furtado, D. A. Aguirre, C. B. Sirlin, D. Dang, S. K. Stamato, P. Lee, F. Sani, M. A. Brown, D. L. Levin, and G. Casola Whole-Body CT Screening: Spectrum of Findings and Recommendations in 1192 Patients Radiology, November 1, 2005; 237(2): 385 - 394. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. Illes, D. Kann, K. Karetsky, P. Letourneau, T. A. Raffin, P. Schraedley-Desmond, B. A. Koenig, and S. W. Atlas Advertising, Patient Decision Making, and Self-referral for Computed Tomographic and Magnetic Resonance Imaging Arch Intern Med, December 13, 2004; 164(22): 2415 - 2419. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
G. M. Kalish, M. Bhargavan, J. H. Sunshine, and H. P. Forman Self-referred Whole-Body Imaging: Where Are We Now? Radiology, November 1, 2004; 233(2): 353 - 358. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
D. J. Brenner and C. D. Elliston Estimated Radiation Risks Potentially Associated with Full-Body CT Screening Radiology, September 1, 2004; 232(3): 735 - 738. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
A K Dixon Whole-body CT health screening Br. J. Radiol., May 1, 2004; 77(917): 370 - 371. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
| RADIOLOGY | RADIOGRAPHICS | RSNA JOURNALS ONLINE |
