Routine Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Idiopathic Olfactory Loss: A Modeling-Based Economic Evaluation | Neurology | JAMA Otolaryngology–Head & Neck Surgery | JAMA Network
[Skip to Navigation]
Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
Mello  MM, Chandra  A, Gawande  AA, Studdert  DM.  National costs of the medical liability system.  Health Aff (Millwood). 2010;29(9):1569-1577.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Berwick  DM, Hackbarth  AD.  Eliminating waste in US health care.  JAMA. 2012;307(14):1513-1516.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Neumann  PJ.  What we talk about when we talk about health care costs.  N Engl J Med. 2012;366(7):585-586.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Rouby  C, Thomas-Danguin  T, Vigouroux  M,  et al.  The Lyon clinical olfactory test: validation and measurement of hyposmia and anosmia in healthy and diseased populations.  Int J Otolaryngol. 2011;2011:203805. doi:10.1155/2011/203805. PubMedGoogle Scholar
Gaines  A.  Chapter 13: olfactory disorders.  Am J Rhinol Allergy. 2013;27(suppl 1):S45-S47. PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Rudmik  L, Smith  TL.  Olfactory improvement after endoscopic sinus surgery.  Curr Opin Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2012;20(1):29-32.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Henkin  RI, Levy  LM, Fordyce  A.  Taste and smell function in chronic disease: a review of clinical and biochemical evaluations of taste and smell dysfunction in over 5000 patients at The Taste and Smell Clinic in Washington, DC.  Am J Otolaryngol. 2013;34(5):477-489.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Hoekman  PK, Houlton  JJ, Seiden  AM.  The utility of magnetic resonance imaging in the diagnostic evaluation of idiopathic olfactory loss.  Laryngoscope. 2014;124(2):365-368.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Decker  JR, Meen  EK, Kern  RC, Chandra  RK.  Cost effectiveness of magnetic resonance imaging in the workup of the dysosmia patient.  Int Forum Allergy Rhinol. 2013;3(1):56-61. PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Rudmik  L, Drummond  M.  Health economic evaluation: important principles and methodology.  Laryngoscope. 2013;123(6):1341-1347.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Husereau  D, Drummond  M, Petrou  S,  et al.  Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS)–explanation and elaboration: a report of the ISPOR Health Economic Evaluation Publication Guidelines Good Reporting Practices Task Force.  Value Health. 2013; 16(2):231-250. PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Localio  AR, Lawthers  AG, Brennan  TA,  et al.  Relation between malpractice claims and adverse events due to negligence: results of the Harvard Medical Practice Study III.  N Engl J Med. 1991;325(4):245-251. PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Doran  BJ, ed.  Medical Malpractice: Verdicts, Settlements, and Statistical Analysis. Horsham, PA: LRP Publications; 2005.
Vidmar  N.  Juries and medical malpractice claims: empirical facts versus myths.  Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2009;467(2):367-375. PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Physician Insurers Association of America. Medical economics 2014. Published January 11, 2012. Accessed August 5, 2014.
Ahsan  SF, Syamal  MN, Yaremchuk  K, Peterson  E, Seidman  M.  The costs and utility of imaging in evaluating dizzy patients in the emergency room.  Laryngoscope. 2013;123(9):2250-2253.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Fenwick  E, O’Brien  BJ, Briggs  A.  Cost-effectiveness acceptability curves: facts, fallacies and frequently asked questions.  Health Econ. 2004;13(5):405-415.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Siegel  JE, Weinstein  MC, Russell  LB, Gold  MR; Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine.  Recommendations for reporting cost-effectiveness analyses.  JAMA. 1996;276(16):1339-1341.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Task Force on Principles for Economic Analysis of Health Care Technology.  Economic analysis of health care technology: a report on principles.  Ann Intern Med. 1995;123(1):61-70.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care.  Ontario guidelines for economic analysis of pharmaceutical products. Published August 1994. Accessed August 5, 2014.
Original Investigation
October 2014

Routine Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Idiopathic Olfactory Loss: A Modeling-Based Economic Evaluation

Author Affiliations
  • 1Division of Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
  • 2Division of Rhinology and Sinus Surgery, Department of Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston
  • 3Oregon Sinus Center, Division of Rhinology and Sinus Surgery, Department of Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland
JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2014;140(10):911-917. doi:10.1001/jamaoto.2014.1883

Importance  Idiopathic olfactory loss is a common clinical scenario encountered by otolaryngologists. While trying to allocate limited health care resources appropriately, the decision to obtain a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan to investigate for a rare intracranial abnormality can be difficult.

Objective  To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of ordering routine MRI in patients with idiopathic olfactory loss.

Design, Setting, and Participants  We performed a modeling-based economic evaluation with a time horizon of less than 1 year. Patients included in the analysis had idiopathic olfactory loss defined by no preceding viral illness or head trauma and negative findings of a physical examination and nasal endoscopy.

Interventions  Routine MRI vs no-imaging strategies.

Main Outcomes and Measures  We developed a decision tree economic model from the societal perspective. Effectiveness, probability, and cost data were obtained from the published literature. Litigation rates and costs related to a missed diagnosis were obtained from the Physicians Insurers Association of America. A univariate threshold analysis and multivariate probabilistic sensitivity analysis were performed to quantify the degree of certainty in the economic conclusion of the reference case. The comparative groups included those who underwent routine MRI of the brain with contrast alone and those who underwent no brain imaging. The primary outcome was the cost per correct diagnosis of idiopathic olfactory loss.

Results  The mean (SD) cost for the MRI strategy totaled $2400.00 ($1717.54) and was effective 100% of the time, whereas the mean (SD) cost for the no-imaging strategy totaled $86.61 ($107.40) and was effective 98% of the time. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for the MRI strategy compared with the no-imaging strategy was $115 669.50, which is higher than most acceptable willingness-to-pay thresholds. The threshold analysis demonstrated that when the probability of having a treatable intracranial disease process reached 7.9%, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for MRI vs no imaging was $24 654.38. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis demonstrated that the no-imaging strategy was the cost-effective decision with 81% certainty at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $50 000.

Conclusions and Relevance  This economic evaluation suggests that the most cost-effective decision is to not obtain a routine MRI scan of the brain in patients with idiopathic olfactory loss. Outcomes from this study may be used to counsel patients and aid in the decision-making process.