Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19298658›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2009

Qualitative assessment of innovations in healthcare provision.

Franz Porzsolt, Amit K Ghosh, Robert M Kaplan

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. [Scientific evidence and the cost of innovations in the health-care system].Medizinische Klinik (Munich, Germany : 1983) · 2009
    Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Franz PorzsoltClinical Economics, University of Ulm, Frauensteige 6, 89075 Ulm, Germany. franz.porzsolt@uniklinik-ulm.de
Amit K Ghosh
Robert M Kaplan

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe triad of quality, innovation and economic restraint is as important in health care as it is in the business world. There are many proposals for the assessment of quality and of economic restraints in health care but only a few address assessment of innovations. We propose a strategy and new structures to standardize the description of health care innovations and to quantify them. DISCUSSION: Strategy and structure are based on the assumption that in the early phase of an innovation only data on the feasibility and possibly on the efficacy or effectiveness of an innovation can be expected. From the patient's perspective, benefit resulting from an innovation can be confirmed only in a later phase of development. Early indicators of patient's benefit will be surrogate parameters which correlate only weakly with the desired endpoints. After the innovation has been in use, there will be more evidence on correlations between surrogate parameters and the desired endpoints to provide evidence of the patient benefit. From an administrative perspective, this evidence can be considered in decisions about public financing. Different criteria are proposed for the assessment of innovations in prevention, diagnosis and therapy. For decisions on public financing a public fund for innovations may be helpful. Depending on the phase of innovation risk sharing models are proposed between manufacturers, private insurers and public funding. SUMMARY: Potential for patient benefit is always uncertain during early stages of innovations. This uncertainty decreases with increasing information on the effects of the innovation. Information about an innovation can be quantified, categorized and integrated into rational economic decisions.

Indexed as

Delivery of Health CareFeasibility StudiesOrganizational InnovationTechnology Assessment, Biomedical

Identifiers

PMID19298658
PMCPMC2666677

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.