Excerpt

Medical technologies are continually changing and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is no exception, where increasing the magnet strength has produced more sophisticated device capabilities. A systematic review of the evidence comparing the clinical applications of 1.5 Tesla (T) MRI with those of 3.0 T MRI aims to provide health care decision makers such as government purchasers, health care planners, and clinicians with information about the clinical effectiveness and institutional efficiency of the 1.5 T MRI and 3.0 T MRI.

Contents

• EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
• ABBREVIATIONS
• 1. INTRODUCTION
  • 1.1 Background and Setting in Canada
  • 1.2 Overview of MRI Technology
• 2. ISSUE
• 3. RESEARCH QUESTIONS
• 4. CLINICAL REVIEW
  • 4.1 Methods
  • 4.2 Results
• 5. MRI USE
  • 5.1 MRI Installations in Canada
  • 5.2 Mean Examinations per MRI Scanner in Canada
  • 5.3 MRI Use (Examinations per 1,000 People)
• 6. DISCUSSION
  • 6.1 Summary of Results
  • 6.2 Limitations of Assessment
• 7. CONCLUSIONS
• REFERENCES
• APPENDIX 1 PROS AND CONS OF 1.5 T MRI VERSUS 3.0 T MRI
• APPENDIX 2 LITERATURE SEARCH STRATEGY
• APPENDIX 3 EVIDENCE TABLES
• APPENDIX 4 EXAMPLES OF MRI TECHNICAL TEST PARAMETERS
• SUPPLEMENTAL ISSUES

Authorship: Ron Wood, Vicki Foerster, Ken Bassett, Leonard Tong, and Carolyn Spry participated in planning and reviewing the project. Ron Wood led the authoring team and was the key liaison between ProMed and CADTH. Ron Wood also wrote the sections on MRI utilization, and contributed to the cost table. Vicki Foerster and Ken Bassett were responsible for the evaluative framework, study selection, data extraction, evidence tables, and drafting substantial parts of the systematic review. Leonard Tong was responsible for reviewing the original equipment manufacturer information, cost table, pros and cons of 1.5 T MRI and 3.0 T MRI table, as well as describing MRI installation. Carolyn Spry designed and performed the literature search, wrote material in the report related to literature searching, and verified bibliographic references.

Acknowledgements: CADTH thanks Ron Pohar for his significant contribution to the supplemental issue on safety.

Conflicts of Interest: None declared.

CADTH is funded by Canadian federal, provincial, and territorial governments.

Suggested citation:

Wood R, Bassett K, Foerster V, Spry C, Tong L. 1.5 Tesla Magnetic Resonance Imaging Scanners Compared with 3.0 Tesla Magnetic Resonance Imaging Scanners: Systematic Review of Clinical Effectiveness [Internet]. Ottawa: Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health; 2011 (CADTH Rapid Response Report).

Production of this report is made possible by financial contributions from Health Canada and the governments of Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba, New Brunswick, Newfoundland and Labrador, Northwest Territories, Nova Scotia, Nunavut, Prince Edward Island, Saskatchewan, and Yukon. The Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health takes sole responsibility for the final form and content of this report. The views expressed herein do not necessarily represent the views of Health Canada or any provincial or territorial government.

This report is a review of existing literature, studies, materials, and other information and documentation (collectively the “source documentation”) that are available to CADTH. The accuracy of the contents of the source documentation on which this report is based is not warranted, assured, or represented in any way by CADTH, and CADTH does not assume responsibility for the quality, propriety, inaccuracies, or reasonableness of any statements, information, or conclusions contained in the source documentation.

CADTH takes sole responsibility for the final form and content of this report. The statements and conclusions in this report are those of CADTH and not of its reviewers or Scientific Advisory Panel members.