Hostname: page-component-6766d58669-vgfm9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-21T05:28:25.643Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Introduction and Evaluation of MRI in Japan

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 March 2009

Akinori Hisashige
Akinori Hisashige
Affiliation:
Suzuka University of Medical Science and Technology
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Not only is the number of computed tomography (CT) units relative to population in Japan the highest in the world, that of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) units is second only to the United States. This study examines the diffusion pattern of MRI in Japan, as well as the factors that influence it. The number of MRI units has increased sharply, closely following CT, as has been the case in the United States. This pattern of diffusion in Japan was determined mainly by the following factors: the technological attributes of MRI; the market situation of the medical engineering industry; the reimbursement system of health insurance; and Japan's sociocultural background. However, the introduction of MRI in Japan was not linked to any formal assessment of its efficacy or effectiveness.

Information

Type
Special Section: Assessing Nursing and Technology
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 10 , Issue 3 , Summer 1994 , pp. 392 - 405
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1994

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

1.Abegglen, J. C., & Stalk, G. Jr.Kaisha, the Japanese Corporation. Tokyo: Turtle, 1987.Google Scholar
2.Arimizu, N.Economic efficiency of x-ray, CT, and MRI. Shin Iryo (Journal of New Medicine). 1985, 12, 25–30 (in Japanese).Google Scholar
3.Australian Health Technology Advisory Committee. Consensus statement on the clinical efficacy of magnetic resonance imaging. Canberra: Australian Institute of Health, 1991.Google Scholar
4.Banta, H. D.Technology assessment and diagnostic imaging. European Journal of Radiology, 1992, 14, 141–46.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5.Beam, C. A., Sostman, H. D., & Zheng, J.-Y.Status of clinical MR evaluations 1985 – 1988: Baseline and design for future assessment. Radiology. 1991, 180, 265–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6.Cooper, L. S., Charlmers, T. C., McCally, M., et al. The poor quality of early evaluations of magnetic resonance imaging. Journal of the American Medical Association, 1988, 10, 3277–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7.Council on Scientific Affairs. Magnetic resonance imaging of the cardiovascular system. Magnetic resonance imaging of the central nervous system. Report of the Magnetic Resonance Imaging Panel. Journal of the American Medical Association, 1988, 259, 253–59, 1211–22.Google Scholar
8.Dixson, A. K., Southernton, J. P., Teale, A., et al. Magnetic resonance imaging of the head and spine. British Medical Journal, 1991, 302, 78–82.Google Scholar
9.Durand-Zaleski, I., Reizine, D., Puzin, D., et al. Economic assessment of magnetic resonance imaging. In Flagle, C., et al. (eds.), Assessment of medical informatics technology. ENSP, Cedex, 1991, 259–67.Google Scholar
10.Edelman, R. R., & Warach, S.Magnetic resonance imaging. New England Journal of Medicine, 1993, 328, 708–16, 785–91.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11.Evens, R. G., & Evens, R. G. Jr., Analysis of economics and use of MR imaging in the United States in 1990. American Journal of Radiology, 1991, 157, 603–07.Google ScholarPubMed
12.Fenny, D., Guyatt, G., & Tagwell, P. (eds.). Health care technology: Effectiveness, efficiency and public policy. Montreal: The Institute for Research on Public Policy, 1986.Google Scholar
13.Foote, S. B.Managing the medical arms race. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1992.Google Scholar
14.Fujii, S. (ed.). Management: Tomorrow's medicine, vol. 3. Tokyo: Chuohoki Press, 1985 (in Japanese).Google Scholar
15.Guyatt, G., & Drummond, M.Guidelines for the clinical and economic assessment of health technologies: The case of magnetic resonance. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 1985, 1, 551–66.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
16.Hailey, D. M., & Crowe, B. L.The introduction and evaluation of magnetic resonance imaging in Australia. Health Policy, 1991, 17, 25–37.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
17.Hillman, A. L., & Schwartz, J. S. The adoption and diffusion of CT and MRI in the United States. Medical Care, 1985, 1283–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
18.Hillman, A. L., & Schwartz, J. S.The diffusion of MRI: Patterns of siting and ownership in an era of changing incentives. American Journal of Radiology, 1988, 146, 963–69.Google Scholar
19.Hisashige, A. Health care delivery, financing system and aging in Japan. Journal of Japanese Association of Radiological Technologist, 1992, 27–52.Google Scholar
20.Hisashige, A. Analysis of economic and use of MRI in Japan. Research report supported by the Health Policy Bureau, Ministry of Health and Welfare, 1992 (in Japanese).Google Scholar
21.Hisashige, A., Fukuhisa, K., Iinuma, T., et al. Cost-effective analysis of intracranial malignant tumors by MRI. Research report supported by the Health Policy Bureau, Ministry of Health and Welfare, 1993 (in Japanese).Google Scholar
22.Hisashige, A., Sakurai, T., & Kaihara, S. Medical technology assessment and medical information technology in Japan: Present and future. In Flagle, C., et al. (eds.). Assessment of medical informatics technology. ENSP, Cedex, 1991, 509–19.Google Scholar
23.Iglehart, J. K.Japan’s medical care system. Part 2. New England Journal of Medicine, 1988, 319, 1166–72.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
24.Ikegami, N.The economics of health care in Japan. Science, 1992, 258, 614–18.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
25.Imaging Technology & Information Display, 1980, 17 — 1990, 27.Google Scholar
26.Japan Association of Radiation Apparatus. Statistics of medical radiological equipment, 1992.Google Scholar
27.Japanese Journal of Clinical Radiology, 1980, 25 — 1990, 35.Google Scholar
28.Japanese Journal of Nuclear Medicine, 1980, 17 — 1990, 27.Google Scholar
29.Kent, D. L., & Larson, E. B.Magnetic resonance imaging of the brain and spine. Annals of Internal Medicine, 1988, 108, 402–24.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
30.Kent, D. L.Clinical efficacy of MR needs rigorous study. Diagnostic Imaging, 1990, 161, 69–71.Google Scholar
31.Kent, D. L., & Larson, E. B.Disease, level of impact, and quality of research methods. Investigative Radiology, 1992, 27, 245–54.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
32.Koob, L., & Simm, F. C.Ten years of clinical magnetic resonance: Today’s state-of-the-art system. European Radiology, 1992, 1, 95–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
33.Kuhns, L. R., Thornbury, J. R., & Feryback, D. (eds.). Decision making in imaging. Chicago: Year Book, 1989.Google Scholar
34.Ministry of Health and Welfare: Medical care facilities. Tokyo: Kosei Tokei Kyokai, 1978–1987.Google Scholar
35.Ministry of Health and Welfare (Medical Device Division): Guide to medical device registration, 6th ed.Tokyo: Yakuji Nippo, 1991.Google Scholar
36.Ministry of Health and Welfare (Pharmaceutical Affairs Bureau). Pharmaceutical industries production statistics. Yakugyou Keizai Kenkyusho, 1972–1988.Google Scholar
37.Ministry of Health and Welfare: Revised point fees. Shakai Hoken Kenkysho, 1985–1990.Google Scholar
38.Ministry of Health and Welfare: Report of social insurance medical care according to procedure. Tokyo: Kosei Tokei Kyokai, 1986–1990.Google Scholar
39.Mushlin, A. I., Detsky, A. S., Phelps, C. E., et al. The accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging in patients with suspected multiple sclerosis. Journal of the American Medical Association. 1993, 269, 3146–51.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
40.Nakajima, Y., Inada, Y., Imamura, K., et al. Rinsho Hosyasen (Clinical Radiology), 1989, 34, 19–25 (in Japanese).Google Scholar
41.Niki, R. Socioeconomics of CT scanner. Shizen (Nature), 1983, 44–51 (in Japanese).Google Scholar
42.Nippon Acta Radiologica, 1980, 40—1990, 50.Google Scholar
43.Nishimura, K., Hida, S., Nishio, Y., et al. The validity of magnetic resonance imaging in the staging of bladder cancer. Japanese Journal of Clinical Oncology, 1988, 18, 217–26.Google ScholarPubMed
44.Office of Medical Applications of Research. Magnetic resonance imaging. Journal of the American Medical Association, 1988, 259, 2132–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
45.Shin Iryo (Journal of New Medicine). The list of installed MRI and CT, 1975–1992.Google Scholar
46.Steinberg, E. P.The status of MRI in 1986: Rates of adoption in the United States and worldwide. American Journal of Radiology, 1986, 147, 453–55.Google ScholarPubMed
47.Steinberg, E. P., Sisk, J. E., & Locke, K. E.The diffusion of magnetic resonance imagers in the United States and worldwide. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care. 1985, 1, 499–514.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
48.Szczepura, E. K., Fletcher, J., & Fitz-Patrik, J. D.Cost effectiveness of magnetic resonance imaging in the neurosciences. British Medical Journal, 1991, 303, 1435–39.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
49.Teasdale, G. M., Hadley, D. M., Lawrence, A., et al. Comparison of magnetic resonance imaging and computed tomography in suspected lesions in the posterior cranial fossa. 1989, 299, 349–55.Google ScholarPubMed
50.Van Dijke, C. F., & van Waes, P. F. G. M.Head and neck tumors, MRI versus CT: A technology assessment pilot study. European Journal of Radiology, 1992, 14, 235–39.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed