ReviewJournal of general internal medicine2015
The role of professional societies in limiting indication creep.
Review in Journal of general internal medicine, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 20 citations in OpenAlex.
- Five-Year Mortality of Surgical and Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in the Real-World Scenario: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Propensity Score Matching Studies.Brazilian journal of cardiovascular surgery · 2025Pooled it
- Impact of point-of-care C reactive protein in ambulatory care: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMJ open · 2019Pooled it
- Disproportionate expansion of radical prostatectomy among older men in Japan in the robotic surgery era: a nationwide descriptive time series analysis.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Article
- Exploratory health economic analyses to support decisions within the innovation process in radiotherapy: Magnetic Resonance Linear Accelerator as a case study.Technical innovations & patient support in radiation oncology · 2025Article
- Nonsevere hypertensive disorders of pregnancy and oral antihypertensive medications: an argument in favor of use.American journal of obstetrics & gynecology MFM · 2025Review
- Prevalence of Inpatient Pulse Oximetry in Operative and Nonoperative Settings: A Multicenter Study.CHEST critical care · 2024Article
- Addressing Antibiotic Overuse in the Outpatient Setting: Lessons From Behavioral Economics.Mayo Clinic proceedings · 2021Article
- Overutilization of Breast Cancer Screening in the US: Awareness of a Growing Problem.Journal of general internal medicine · 2018Article
- Maintaining competence in general internal medicine.Journal of general internal medicine · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
New technology is a major driver of health care inflation. One contributor to this inflation is indication creep, the diffusion of interventions that have been proven beneficial in specific patient populations into untested broader populations who may be less likely to benefit. Professional societies sometimes promote indication creep, as we illustrate with the case of therapeutic hypothermia after cardiac arrest. Professional societies are in a unique position to limit indication creep. We propose that, at a minimum, professional societies should refrain from recommending new diagnostic and therapeutic technologies in their guidelines until they have been proven beneficial in the targeted populations. In some circumstances, professional societies could be more active in combatting indication creep, either recommending against expanded use of clinical interventions when evidence is lacking, or coordinating efforts to collect data in these broader populations.
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.