ArticleHealthcare (Amsterdam, Netherlands)2014
The Peltzman effect and compensatory markers in medicine.
Article in Healthcare (Amsterdam, Netherlands), 2014. 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.
- An examination and extension of the Peltzman effect during the Covid-19 pandemic.Current research in ecological and social psychology · 2023Article
- Promoting physical distancing during COVID-19: a systematic approach to compare behavioral interventions.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- Testing as Prevention of Resistance in Bacteria Causing Sexually Transmitted Infections-A Population-Based Model for Germany.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Medicine, market and communication: ethical considerations in regard to persuasive communication in direct-to-consumer genetic testing services.BMC medical ethics · 2018Article
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.
Funding
Abstract
Unintended consequences of health care interventions are unavoidable. For example, computerized order entry systems, implemented to reduce prescription errors, catalyze novel errors of their own, with providers unexpectedly relying on these systems to provide default dosing information rather than locating appropriate treatment guidelines. We argue that unintended behavioral responses by patients and physicians to health care interventions may explain why certain health care interventions that seem logical and foolproof fail to demonstrate real-world benefits. We argue that compensatory markers which measure behavioral responses in clinical trials should be implemented to better understand why real-world benefits fail to materialize.
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.