This Article Free Full Text (Free OnlineFirst PDF) All Versions of this Article: 8756479309336240v1 25/3/138    most recent Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Bierig, S. M. Articles by Jones, A. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Accuracy and Cost Comparison of Ultrasound Versus Alternative Imaging Modalities, Including CT, MR, PET, and Angiography

^* To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: bierigsm{at}slu.edu.

	Abstract

Ultrasound (US) has become widely used in clinical medicine for the diagnosis of a variety of disease processes. The unique ability of US to provide accurate information through an efficacious, painless, portable, and nonionizing method has expanded its role and application in diverse medical settings. Given the current economic environment and the related interest in creating the greatest value for health care expenditures, US has been evaluated to compare its clinical accuracy/efficacy and cost-effectiveness versus other imaging modalities. The following literature review reports the results of research studies aimed at comparing the accuracy/efficacy and cost of US versus alternative imaging modalities, including magnetic resonance imaging, computed tomography, contrast angiography, and single-photon emission computed tomography.

First published on May 20, 2009, doi:10.1177/8756479309336240

Journal of Diagnostic Medical Sonography 2009;25:138.

A more recent version of this article appeared on May 1, 2009


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?