• IMA sites
  • IMAJ services
  • IMA journals
  • Follow us
  • Alternate Text Alternate Text
עמוד בית
Thu, 21.11.24

Search results


October 2013
I. Abadi-Korek, J. Glazer, A. Granados, O. Luxenburg, M.R. Trusheim, N. Hakak and J. Shemer
December 2010
E. Horowitz, I. Abadi-Korek, M. Shani and J. Shemer

Background: The European Quality of Life 5-Dimensions questionnaire is one of the most commonly used measures of health-related quality of life.

Objectives: To present the feasibility, reliability, and validity of the Hebrew version of the EQ-5D[1].

Methods: We conducted face-to-face interviews with a representative sample (n=1666) of the Israeli Jewish population. The data collected included demographic and medical information, and self-valuation of health using the EQ-5D descriptive system, Visual Analogue Scale and Time Trade-Off. Construct validity was assessed by assuming that older individuals, those with a greater burden of diseases, and those reporting experience with their own severe illness would have lower EQ-5D indexes, VAS[2] and TTO[3] values. Test-retest reliability was assessed in a small sample (n=50) that was reevaluated after a 3 week interval.

Results: Test-retest reliability of the EQ-5D and VAS was very high (r ≥ 0.85). Reliability of the TTO was moderate (r = 0.48). There were significant differences in the EQ-5D index, profiles, VAS and TTO between healthy and sick respondents and younger and older respondents, indicating good validity of the instrument.

Conclusions: The Hebrew translation of the EQ-5D is a practical, reliable and valid instrument for assessing the health-related quality of life of the general Israeli Jewish population.






[1] EQ-5D = European Quality of Life 5-Dimensions

[2] VAS = Visual Analogue Scale

[3] TTO = Time Trade-Off


October 2008
A. Roguin, S. Abadi, E. Ghersin, A. Engel, R. Beyar and S. Rispler

Background: Multi-detector computed tomography has advanced enormously and now enables non-invasive evaluation of coronary arteries as well as cardiac anatomy, function and perfusion. However, the role of cardiac MDCT[1] is not yet determined in the medical community and, consequently, many clinically unnecessary scans are performed solely on a self-referral basis.

Objectives: To prospectively evaluate the role of a cardiologist consultation and recommendation prior to the scan, and the influence on the diagnostic yield of cardiac MDCT.

Methods: In our center, a CT service was initiated, but with the prerequisite approval of a cardiologist before performance of the CT. Each individual who wanted and was willing to pay for a cardiac CT was interviewed by an experienced cardiologist who determined whether cardiac MDCT was the most appropriate next test in the cardiovascular evaluation. Subjects were classified into three groups: a) those with a normal or no prior stress test, no typical symptoms and no significant risk factors of coronary artery disease were recommended to perform a stress test or to remain under close clinical follow-up without MDCT; b) those with an equivocal stress test, atypical symptoms and/or significant risk factors were allowed to have cardiac MDCT; and c) those with positive stress test or clinically highly suspected CAD[2] were advised to go directly to invasive coronary angiography. CT findings were categorized as normal CAD (normal calcium score and no narrowings), < 50% and > 50% CAD.

Results: A total of 254 people were interviewed, and in only 39 cases did the cardiologist approve the CT. However, 61 of the 215, despite our recommendation not to undergo CT, decided to have the scan. Assessment of the 100 cases that underwent MDCT showed a statistically significant better discrimination of significant CAD, according to the cardiologist’s recommendation: MDCT not recommended in 3/54 (6%) vs. MDCT recommended in 12/39 (31%) vs. recommended invasive coronary angiography in 4/7 (57%) (P < 0.001).

Conclusions: Detection of coronary calcification, as well as MDCT angiography can provide clinically useful information if applied to suitable patient groups. It is foreseeable that MDCT angiography will become part of the routine workup in some subsets of patients with suspected CAD. Selection of patients undergoing MDCT scans by a cardiologist improves the ability of the test to stratify patients, preventing unnecessary scans in both high and low risk patients






[1] MDCT = multi-detector computed tomography

[2] CAD = coronary artery disease


April 2006
U. Abadi, R. Hadary, L.Shilo, A. Shabun, G. Greenberg and S. Kovatz
April 2005
J. Shemer, I. Abadi-Korek and A. Seifan
 New medical technologies that offer to improve upon or completely replace existing ones are continuously appearing. These technologies are forcing healthcare policymakers to consistently evaluate new treatment options. However, this emerging medical technology has been viewed as a significant factor in increasing the cost of healthcare. The abundance of new medical alternatives, combined with scarcity of resources, has led to priority setting, rationing, and the need for further technology management and assessment. Economic evaluation of medical technologies is a system of analysis within the framework of Health Technology Assessment to formally compare the costs and consequences of alternative healthcare interventions. EEMT[1] can be used by many healthcare entities, including national policymakers, manufacturers, payers and providers, as a tool to aid in resource allocation decisions. In this paper we discuss the historical evolution and potential of EEMT, the practical limitations hindering more extensive implementation of these types of studies, current efforts at improvement, and the ethical issues influencing ongoing development. The Medical Technologies Administration of Israel's Ministry of Health is given as an example of an entity that has succeeded in practically implementing EEMT to optimize healthcare resource allocation.

_______________

[1] EEMT = economic evaluation of medical technologies
Legal Disclaimer: The information contained in this website is provided for informational purposes only, and should not be construed as legal or medical advice on any matter.
The IMA is not responsible for and expressly disclaims liability for damages of any kind arising from the use of or reliance on information contained within the site.
© All rights to information on this site are reserved and are the property of the Israeli Medical Association. Privacy policy

2 Twin Towers, 35 Jabotinsky, POB 4292, Ramat Gan 5251108 Israel