ArticleMedical care2013
The impact of technology diffusion on treatment for prostate cancer.
Article in Medical care, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Creating a National Provider Identifier (NPI) to Unique Physician Identification Number (UPIN) Crosswalk for Medicare Data.Medical care · 2017Article
- Increasing use of radical prostatectomy for locally advanced prostate cancer in the USA and Germany: a comparative population-based study.Prostate cancer and prostatic diseases · 2017Article
- Variation in the use of postoperative radiotherapy among high-risk patients following radical prostatectomy.Prostate cancer and prostatic diseases · 2016Article
- The Effect of the Diffusion of the Surgical Robot on the Hospital-level Utilization of Partial Nephrectomy.Medical care · 2015Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe use of local therapy for prostate cancer may increase because of the perceived advantages of new technologies such as intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) and robotic prostatectomy.
objectiveTo examine the association of market-level technological capacity with receipt of local therapy.
designRetrospective cohort. SUBJECTS: Patients with localized prostate cancer who were diagnosed between 2003 and 2007 (n=59,043) from the Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results-Medicare database. MEASURES: We measured the capacity for delivering treatment with new technology as the number of providers offering robotic prostatectomy or IMRT per population in a market (hospital referral region). The association of this measure with receipt of prostatectomy, radiotherapy, or observation was examined with multinomial logistic regression.
resultsFor each 1000 patients diagnosed with prostate cancer, 174 underwent prostatectomy, 490 radiotherapy, and 336 were observed. Markets with high robotic prostatectomy capacity had higher use of prostatectomy (146 vs. 118 per 1000 men, P=0.008) but a trend toward decreased use of radiotherapy (574 vs. 601 per 1000 men, P=0.068), resulting in a stable rate of local therapy. High versus low IMRT capacity did not significantly impact the use of prostatectomy (129 vs. 129 per 1000 men, P=0.947) and radiotherapy (594 vs. 585 per 1000 men, P=0.579).
conclusionsAlthough there was a small shift from radiotherapy to prostatectomy in markets with high robotic prostatectomy capacity, increased capacity for both robotic prostatectomy and IMRT did not change the overall rate of local therapy. Our findings temper concerns that the new technology spurs additional therapy of prostate cancer.
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.