Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27630095›Full record

ArticleBMC public health2016

Halo and spillover effect illustrations for selected beneficial medical devices and drugs.

Brent D Kerger, Autumn Bernal, Dennis J Paustenbach, Gavin Huntley-Fenner

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC public health, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
2.6field-weighted citation impact, top 9% of its field
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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Pragmatic Clinical Trials in Osteoporosis.Current osteoporosis reports · 2019
    Review
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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Brent D KergerExponent, 320 Goddard, Suite 200, Irvine, CA, 92618, USA.
Autumn BernalCardno ChemRisk, 130 Vantis, Suite 170, Aliso Viejo, CA, 92656, USA. autumn.bernal@cardno.com.
Dennis J PaustenbachCardno ChemRisk, 101 2nd St. Suite 700, San Francisco, CA, 94105, USA.
Gavin Huntley-FennerHuntley-Fenner Advisors, 5319 University Drive, #137, Irvine, CA, 92612, USA.
Cardno (United States) · USExponent (United States) · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundNegative news media reports regarding potential health hazards of implanted medical devices and pharmaceuticals can lead to a 'negative halo effect,' a phenomenon whereby judgments about a product or product type can be unconsciously altered even though the scientific support is tenuous. To determine how a 'negative halo effect' may impact the rates of use and/or explantation of medical products, we analyzed the occurrence of such an effect on three implanted medical devices and one drug: 1) intrauterine contraceptive devices (IUDs); 2) silicone gel-filled breast implants (SGBI); 3) metal-on-metal hip implants (MoM); and 4) the drug Tysabri.

methodsData on IUD use from 1965 to 2008 were gathered from the Department of Health and Human Services Vital and Health Statistics and peer-reviewed publications. Data regarding SGBI implant and explantation rates from 1989 to 2012 were obtained from the Institute of Medicine and the American Society of Plastic Surgeons. MoM implant and explantation data were extracted from the England and Wales National Joint Registry and peer-reviewed publications. Tysabri patient data were reported by Elan Corporation or Biogen Idec Inc. Data trends for all products were compared with historical recall or withdrawal events and discussed in the context of public perceptions following such events.

resultsWe found that common factors altered public risk perceptions and patterns of continued use. First, a negative halo effect may be driven by continuing patient anxiety despite positive clinical outcomes. Second, negative reports about one product can spill over to affect the use of dissimilar products in the same category. Third, a negative halo effect on an entire category of medical devices can be sustained regardless of the scientific findings pertaining to safety. Fourth, recovery of a product's safety reputation and prevalent use may take decades in the U.S., even while these products may exhibit widespread use and good safety records in other countries.

conclusionsWe conclude that the 'negative halo effect' associated with a stigma, rather than an objective risk-benefit assessment of medical products can increase negative health outcomes for patients due to reduced or inappropriate product usage.

Indexed as

Breast ImplantsEnglandEquipment SafetyFemaleHip ProsthesisHumansImmunologic FactorsIntrauterine DevicesMaleMass MediaMetal-on-Metal Joint ProsthesesNatalizumabPatient Acceptance of Health CarePhysiciansProstheses and ImplantsSilicone GelsImmunologic FactorsNatalizumabSilicone GelsIntrauterine deviceMoM hip implantsProduct recallRisk perceptionTysabri

Identifiers

PMID27630095
PMCPMC5024505
OpenAlexW2518919390

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.