Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28760796›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2017

Past speculations of future health technologies: a description of technologies predicted in 15 forecasting studies published between 1986 and 2010.

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

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

objectiveTo describe and classify health technologies predicted in forecasting studies. DESIGN AND

methodsA portrait describing health technologies predicted in 15 forecasting studies published between 1986 and 2010 that were identified in a previous systematic review. Health technologies are classified according to their type, purpose and clinical use; relating these to the original purpose and timing of the forecasting studies. DATA SOURCES: All health-related technologies predicted in 15 forecasting studies identified in a previously published systematic review.

main outcome measureOutcomes related to (1) each forecasting study including country, year, intention and forecasting methods used and (2) the predicted technologies including technology type, purpose, targeted clinical area and forecast timeframe.

resultsOf the 896 identified health-related technologies, 685 (76.5%) were health technologies with an explicit or implied health application and included in our study. Of these, 19.1% were diagnostic or imaging tests, 14.3% devices or biomaterials, 12.6% information technology systems, eHealth or mHealth and 12% drugs. The majority of the technologies were intended to treat or manage disease (38.1%) or diagnose or monitor disease (26.1%). The most frequent targeted clinical areas were infectious diseases followed by cancer, circulatory and nervous system disorders. The most frequent technology types were for: infectious diseases-prophylactic vaccines (45.8%), cancer-drugs (40%), circulatory disease-devices and biomaterials (26.3%), and diseases of the nervous system-equally devices and biomaterials (25%) and regenerative medicine (25%). The mean timeframe for forecasting was 11.6 years (range 0-33 years, median=10, SD=6.6). The forecasting timeframe significantly differed by technology type (p=0.002), the intent of the forecasting group (p<0.001) and the methods used (p<001).

conclusionWhile description and classification of predicted health-related technologies is crucial in preparing healthcare systems for adopting new innovations, further work is needed to test the accuracy of predictions made.

Indexed as

ForecastingBiomedical TechnologyDelivery of Health CareDiffusion of InnovationHumansTechnology Assessment, BiomedicalForecastinghealthcarehealth technologyinnovationprediction

Identifiers

PMID28760796
PMCPMC5642756

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.