ArticleBMC health services research2002
Priority setting for new technologies in medicine: a transdisciplinary study.
Article in BMC health services research, 2002. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Which Framework to Use? A Systematic Review of Ethical Frameworks for the Screening or Evaluation of Health Technology Innovations.Science and engineering ethics · 2022Pooled it
- Trade-offs, fairness, and funding for cancer drugs: key findings from a deliberative public engagement event in British Columbia, Canada.BMC health services research · 2018Article
- Health care as a universal right.Zeitschrift fur Gesundheitswissenschaften = Journal of public health · 2017Article
- Burden of Disease Study and Priority Setting in Korea: an Ethical Perspective.Journal of Korean medical science · 2016Review
- Accountability for reasonableness: the relevance, or not, of exceptionality in resource allocation.Medicine, health care, and philosophy · 2015Article
- Priority setting in health care: a complementary approach.Health care analysis : HCA : journal of health philosophy and policy · 2014Article
- Public involvement in the priority setting activities of a wait time management initiative: a qualitative case study.BMC health services research · 2007Article
- Setting priorities in global child health research investments: assessment of principles and practice.Croatian medical journal · 2007Article
- Resource allocation within the National AIDS Control Program of Pakistan: a qualitative assessment of decision maker's opinions.BMC health services research · 2007Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDecision makers in health care organizations struggle with how to set priorities for new technologies in medicine. Traditional approaches to priority setting for new technologies in medicine are insufficient and there is no widely accepted model that can guide decision makers. DISCUSSION: Daniels and Sabin have developed an ethically based account about how priority setting decisions should be made. We have developed an empirically based account of how priority setting decisions are made. In this paper, we integrate these two accounts into a transdisciplinary model of priority setting for new technologies in medicine that is both ethically and empirically based. SUMMARY: We have developed a transdisciplinary model of priority setting that provides guidance to decision makers that they can operationalize to help address priority setting problems in their institution.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.