ArticleBMC health services research2010
Health economics: the start of clinical freedom.
Article in BMC health services research, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- How to assess the value of low-value care.BMC health services research · 2020Article
- "A manager in the minds of doctors:" a comparison of new modes of control in European hospitals.BMC health services research · 2013Article
- Patient-centered medicine and patient-oriented research: improving health outcomes for individual patients.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2013Article
- On the resuscitation of clinical freedom.BMC health services research · 2010Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSince Professor Hampton announced the death of clinical freedom in 1983, the increasing influence of Evidence-based Medicine and Health Technology Assessment has contributed to augment the feeling that clinicians have a secondary role in the therapeutic decision-making process. DISCUSSION: This article constitutes a reflection on how clinicians may use the results of economic evaluations in their daily clinical practice, making decisions about cost-effectiveness on a case by case basis, and addressing both the patient's and society's needs. To that end, some illustrating examples are taken from the literature to show there are factors with great impact on cost-effectiveness results that can be easily identified and modified by clinicians. SUMMARY: The evolution of the discipline and the trend towards a tailored therapy suggest that health economics is not the end of clinical freedom but the start of it.
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.