Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26966060›Full record

SynthesisBMJ open2016

Past speculations of the future: a review of the methods used for forecasting emerging health technologies.

Lucy Doos, Claire Packer, Derek Ward, Sue Simpson, Andrew Stevens

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMJ open, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. 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

5 authors.

Lucy DoosNIHR Horizon Scanning Research and Intelligence Centre, Institute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Claire PackerNIHR Horizon Scanning Research and Intelligence Centre, Institute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Derek WardNIHR Horizon Scanning Research and Intelligence Centre, Institute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Sue SimpsonNIHR Horizon Scanning Research and Intelligence Centre, Institute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Andrew StevensInstitute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesForecasting can support rational decision-making around the introduction and use of emerging health technologies and prevent investment in technologies that have limited long-term potential. However, forecasting methods need to be credible. We performed a systematic search to identify the methods used in forecasting studies to predict future health technologies within a 3-20-year timeframe. Identification and retrospective assessment of such methods potentially offer a route to more reliable prediction.

designSystematic search of the literature to identify studies reported on methods of forecasting in healthcare.

participantsPeople are not needed in this study. DATA SOURCES: The authors searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsychINFO and grey literature sources, and included articles published in English that reported their methods and a list of identified technologies.

main outcome measureStudies reporting methods used to predict future health technologies within a 3-20-year timeframe with an identified list of individual healthcare technologies. Commercially sponsored reviews, long-term futurology studies (with over 20-year timeframes) and speculative editorials were excluded.

results15 studies met our inclusion criteria. Our results showed that the majority of studies (13/15) consulted experts either alone or in combination with other methods such as literature searching. Only 2 studies used more complex forecasting tools such as scenario building.

conclusionsThe methodological fundamentals of formal 3-20-year prediction are consistent but vary in details. Further research needs to be conducted to ascertain if the predictions made were accurate and whether accuracy varies by the methods used or by the types of technologies identified.

Indexed as

Decision MakingDelivery of Health CareForecastingHumansTechnology Assessment, BiomedicalForecastinghealth technologyinnovationsmethodsSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID26966060
PMCPMC4800127

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.