ArticleApplied health economics and health policy2021
Impact of Guidelines on the Diffusion of Medical Technology: A Case Study of Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy in the UK.
Article in Applied health economics and health policy, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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 1 institution in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionResearch on clinical practice guidelines as a determinant of the diffusion of medical technology remains sparse. We aim to evaluate the impact of guidelines on the awareness of medical technology, as a proxy of its use, with the example of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) in the United Kingdom (UK).
methodsWe measured clinician awareness based on Google searches performed for CRT that corresponded with actual CRT implant numbers provided by the European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA). We identified the guideline recommendations published by the National Institute of Health and Care Excellence (NICE) within the UK, the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) at the European level, and the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association in the United States (US). We specified a dynamic moving average model, with Google searches as the dependent variable and guideline changes as the independent variables.
resultsOne guideline change published by NICE in 2007 and two changes released by the US guidelines in 2005 and 2012 were significantly correlated with the Google searches (p = 0.08, p = 0.02, and p = 0.02, respectively). Guideline changes by the ESC had no significant impact. Changes recommending CRT in place of a conventional pacemaker, in patients with atrial fibrillation, and restricting CRT due to contraindication, remained universally uninfluential.
conclusionThe factors associated with a lack of awareness (as a proxy for technology diffusion) in our case study were: a lack of strong clinical evidence that resulted in the moderate strength of a recommendation, a lack of recognition of any externally published recommendation by NICE, and the frequent release of guidelines with minor changes targeting small patient groups. At least in our case, in the absence of NICE guidelines, the US guidelines received more attention than their non-UK European counterparts, even if the former were released after the latter.
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.