Self-referred Whole-Body CT Imaging: Current Implications for Health Care Consumers

References

• 1 Cihak RJ, Glueck MA. Are whole-body CT scans safe and effective for exploratory screening? yes: in the real world, the x-rays used in these examinations are extremely safe. Available at: www.insightmag.com/archive/200107245.shtml. Accessed July 7 2001.
  Google Scholar
• 2 Henschke CI, Naidich DP, Yankelevitz DF, et al. Early lung cancer action project: initial findings on repeat screenings. Cancer 2001; 92:153-159.
  Medline Google Scholar
• 3 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration, Center for Devices and Radiological Health. Technical Electronic Product Radiation Safety Standards Committee. Rockville, Md 2002.
  Google Scholar
• 4 Stanley RJ. Are whole-body CT scans safe and effective for exploratory screening? no: entrepreneurs are profiting by turning previously healthy people into patients. Available at: www.insightmag.com/archive/200107245.shtml. Accessed August 13 2001.
  Google Scholar
• 5 Taylor AJ, O’Mally PG. Self-referral of patients for electron beam computed tomography to screen for coronary artery disease. N Engl J Med 1998; 339:2018-2021.
  Medline Google Scholar
• 6 Lee TH, Brennan TA. Direct-to-consumer marketing of high technology screening tests. N Engl J Med 2002; 346:529-531.
  Medline Google Scholar
• 7 Cho MK. Conflicts of interest in MRI: issues in clinical practice and research. In: Illes J, Atlas SW, eds. Emerging ethical issues in MRI: topics in MRI. New York, NY: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2002; 13:73-78.
  Google Scholar
• 8 Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs. American Medical Association. Conflicts of interest: physician ownership of medical facilities. JAMA 1992; 267:2366-2369.
  Medline Google Scholar
• 9 O’Rourke RA, Brundage BH, Froelicher VF, et al. American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association expert consensus document on electron beam computed tomography for the diagnosis and prognosis of coronary disease. J Am Coll Cardiol 2000; 36:326-340.
  Medline Google Scholar
• 10 Stanley R. Inherent danger of radiology screening. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2001; 77:989-992.
  Google Scholar
• 11 Goldblatt D, Beresford HR, Bernat JL, et al. Members of The Ethics, Law and Humanities Committee of the American Academy of Neurology, Practice Advisory: participation of a neurologist in direct-to-consumer advertising. Neurology 2001; 56:995-996.
  Medline Google Scholar
• 12 Mitchell JM, Scott E. New evidence of the prevalence and scope of physician joint ventures. JAMA 1992; 268:80-84.
  Medline Google Scholar
• 13 Becker S, Balfe EC, Rosenberg AF. Imaging ventures: a legal primer. Health Care Law Mon 2001; Feb:3-14.
  Google Scholar
• 14 D’Angelo P. Regulating CT Screening in Pennsylvania. Physician’s News Digest. Available at: http://physiciansnews.com/cover/802.html. Accessed May 22 2003.
  Google Scholar
• 15 Feedback Research Services. Cardiac and preventive scanning markets: service and system revenues Jacksonville, Ore: Feedback Research Services, 2001.
  Google Scholar
• 16 Sullivan D. Search engine ratings and review. Available at: www.searchenginewatch.com/reports/index.html. Accessed July 7 2001.
  Google Scholar
• 17 Notess GR. Database relative. Available at: www.searchengineshowdown.com/stats/size.shtml. Accessed July 7 2001.
  Google Scholar
• 18 Denzin NK, Lincoln YS, eds. Handbook of qualitative research Thousand Oaks, Calif: Sage, 1994.
  Google Scholar
• 19 Zar JH. Biostatistical analysis 4th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1999.
  Google Scholar
• 20 Risk A, Petersen C. Health information on the Internet: quality issues and international initiatives. JAMA 2002; 287:2713-2715.
  Medline Google Scholar
• 21 Hogle L. Chemoprevention for healthy women: harbinger of things to come? Health 2001; 5:311-333.
  Google Scholar
• 22 Rotzoll K, Haefner J. Advertising in contemporary society Urbana, Ill: University of Illinois Press, 1996.
  Google Scholar
• 23 Moynihan R. The marketing of fear. Australian Financial Review 2000; 24.
  Google Scholar
• 24 Maguire P. How direct-to-consumer advertising is putting the squeeze on physicians In: ACP-ASIM Observer (newsletter). Philadelphia, Pa: American College of Physicians. Available at: www.acponline.org/journals/news. Accessed July 5, 2001.
  Google Scholar
• 25 Food and Drug Administration. Guidance for industry: consumer-directed broadcast advertisements. Federal Register 1999; 62:43,171.
  Google Scholar
• 26 Terzian T. Direct-to-consumer prescription drug advertising. Am J Law Med 1999; 25:149-167.
  Medline Google Scholar
• 27 Wilkes MS, Bell RA, Kravitz RL. Direct-to-consumer prescription drug advertising: trends, impact and implications. Health Aff (Millwood) 1999; 19:110-128.
  Google Scholar
• 28 Rosenthal MB, Berndt ER, Donohue JM, Frank RG, Epstein AM. Promotion of prescription drugs to consumers. N Engl J Med 2002; 346:498-505.
  Medline Google Scholar
• 29 National Health Council. Direct-to-consumer prescription drug advertising: overview and recommendations. Available at: http://www.nationalhealthcouncil.org/advocacy/dtc.paper.pdf Accessed January 22 2002.
  Google Scholar
• 30 Holmer AF. Direct-to-consumer advertising: strengthening our health care system. N Engl J Med 2002; 346:526-528.
  Medline Google Scholar
• 31 Mitchell JM, Scott E. New evidence of the prevalence and scope of physician joint ventures. JAMA 1992; 268:80-84.
  Medline Google Scholar
• 32 Taylor RM. Ethical aspects of medical economics. Neurol Clin 1989; 7:883-900.
  Medline Google Scholar
• 33 Gotzsche PC. Mammographic screening: no reliable supporting evidence? (letter). Lancet 2002; 359:706.
  Google Scholar
• 34 Randel M, Pearson SD, Sabin E, Hyams T, Emanuel EJ. How managed care can be ethical. Health Aff (Millwood) 2001; 20:43-56.
  Google Scholar
• 35 Black PM. Medical ethics in neurology and neurosurgery. Neurol Clin 1985; 3:215-229.
  Medline Google Scholar
• 36 Detrano RC, Wong ND, Doherty TM, et al. Coronary calcium does not accurately predict near-term future coronary events in high-risk adults. Circulation 1999; 99:2633-2638.
  Medline Google Scholar
• 37 Nahm FKD. Neurology, technology, and the diagnostic imperative. Perspect Biol Med 2001; 44:99-107.
  Medline Google Scholar
• 38 Tancredi AI. Social and ethical implications in technology assessment In: McNeil BJ, Cravalho EG, eds. Critical issues in medical technology. Boston, Mass: Auburn House, 1982.
  Google Scholar
• 39 What the DTC movement means to health care.Mark Health Serv2001; 21:24-29.
  Google Scholar
• 40 Fuchs V. The growing demand for medical care. N Engl J Med 1968; 279:190-195.
  Medline Google Scholar
• 41 Koenig BA. The technological imperative in medical practice: the social creation of a routine treatment. In: Lock M, Gordon D, eds. Biomedicine examined. Boston, Mass: Kluwer, 1988; 65-496.
  Google Scholar
• 42 Rothman DJ. Beginnings count: the technological imperative in American health care New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1997.
  Google Scholar
• 43 European Commission–Directorate for the Environment.Radiation protection 118: referral guidelines for imaging Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, 2000.
  Google Scholar
• 44 Tanne JH. American Medical Association guidelines on direct to consumer advertising. BMJ 1999; 319:805A.
  Medline Google Scholar