Guidance on 1.5 tesla magnetic resonance imaging scanners compared with 3.0 tesla magnetic resonance imaging scanners pilot project : supporting informed decisions

Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) scanners are used in many clinical applications for patients of all ages. In Canada, patients are most likely to be scanned with a 1.5 T MRI scanner; however, more powerful magnet strengths such as 3.0 T MRI are now available for clinical applications. With the stron...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Corporate Author: Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health
Format: eBook
Language:English
Published: Ottawa (ON) Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health May 2011, 2011
Series:CADTH optimal use report
Online Access:
Collection: National Center for Biotechnology Information - Collection details see MPG.ReNa
Description
Summary:Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) scanners are used in many clinical applications for patients of all ages. In Canada, patients are most likely to be scanned with a 1.5 T MRI scanner; however, more powerful magnet strengths such as 3.0 T MRI are now available for clinical applications. With the stronger magnet field strengths comes the potential for increased imaging capabilities. The decision to purchase a 1.5 T MRI scanner or a 3.0 T MRI scanner can be difficult, as MRI scanners are costly, rapidly advancing technologies that limited rigorous comparative evidence reporting on patient benefits including improved diagnoses, patient management, and clinical outcomes (that is, patient-relevant outcomes such as subsequent patient mortality or morbidity). The decision is further complicated by having to consider current and future clinical applications, and the fact that the purchased MRI may need to be used for a number of years. Given the complexity of decisions involved in the purchase of an MRI, CADTH's MRI Expert Advisory Panel has provided guidance to help Canadian jurisdictions considering the purchase of a 1.5 T MRI or 3.0 T MRI make informed decisions. The guidance was based on the best available evidence, and clinical and technical expertise
Physical Description:1 PDF file (ii, 4 pages)