AJR
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Mitchell, D. G.
Right arrow Articles by Levin, D. C.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Mitchell, D. G.
Right arrow Articles by Levin, D. C.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?

Body MR Imaging and CT Volume: Variations and Trends Based on an Analysis of Medicare and Fee-for-Service Health Insurance Databases

Donald G. Mitchell1, Laurence Parker1, Jonathan H. Sunshine2 and David C. Levin1

1 Department of Radiology, Thomas Jefferson University, 1096 Main Bldg,, 132 S. 10th St., Philadelphia, PA 19107.
2 Research Department, American College of Radiology, 1891 Preston White Dr., Reston, VA 20191-4397.



View larger version (15K):

[in a new window]
  		Fig. 1. —Line chart shows relative volume of abdominal MR imaging relative to total MR imaging, which changed little between 1993 and 1996 and then increased markedly in all 10 regions in 1999.

 


View larger version (11K):

[in a new window]
  		Fig. 2. —Bar graph shows relative volumes of pelvic, abdominal, and chest CT were similar in rural (gray), suburban (black), and urban (white) locations.

 


View larger version (11K):

[in a new window]
  		Fig. 3. —Bar graph shows relative volumes of abdominal MR imaging varied markedly among rural (gray), suburban (black), and urban (white) locations.

 


View larger version (10K):

[in a new window]
  		Fig. 4. —Bar graph shows relative volumes of pelvic, abdominal, and chest CT were similar at teaching (black) and nonteaching (white) locations.

 


View larger version (11K):

[in a new window]
  		Fig. 5. —Bar graph shows relative percentages of pelvic, abdominal, and chest CT were much higher at teaching (black) than at nonteaching (white) locations.

 

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



HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2002 by the American Roentgen Ray Society.