Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34717677›Full record

ArticleImplementation science : IS2021

Implementation of innovative medical technologies in German inpatient care: patterns of utilization and evidence development.

Marie Dreger, Helene Eckhardt, Susanne Felgner, Hanna Ermann, Hendrikje Lantzsch, Tanja Rombey, Reinhard Busse, Cornelia Henschke, Dimitra Panteli

Erratum issuedAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Implementation science : IS, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Observational
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Marie DregerDepartment of Health Care Management, Technische Universität Berlin, Straße des 17. Juni 135, 10623, Berlin, Germany. marie.boecker@tu-berlin.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6879-604X
Helene EckhardtDepartment of Health Care Management, Technische Universität Berlin, Straße des 17. Juni 135, 10623, Berlin, Germany.
Susanne FelgnerDepartment of Health Care Management, Technische Universität Berlin, Straße des 17. Juni 135, 10623, Berlin, Germany.
Hanna ErmannDepartment of Health Care Management, Technische Universität Berlin, Straße des 17. Juni 135, 10623, Berlin, Germany.
Hendrikje LantzschDepartment of Health Care Management, Technische Universität Berlin, Straße des 17. Juni 135, 10623, Berlin, Germany.
Tanja RombeyDepartment of Health Care Management, Technische Universität Berlin, Straße des 17. Juni 135, 10623, Berlin, Germany.
Reinhard BusseDepartment of Health Care Management, Technische Universität Berlin, Straße des 17. Juni 135, 10623, Berlin, Germany.
Cornelia Henschke *Department of Health Care Management, Technische Universität Berlin, Straße des 17. Juni 135, 10623, Berlin, Germany.
Dimitra Panteli *Department of Health Care Management, Technische Universität Berlin, Straße des 17. Juni 135, 10623, Berlin, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundInnovative medical technologies are commonly associated with positive expectations. At the time of their introduction into care, there is often little evidence available regarding their benefits and harms. Accordingly, some innovative medical technologies with a lack of evidence are used widely until or even though findings of adverse events emerge, while others with study results supporting their safety and effectiveness remain underused. This study aims at examining the diffusion patterns of innovative medical technologies in German inpatient care between 2005 and 2017 while simultaneously considering evidence development.

methodsBased on a qualitatively derived typology and a quantitative clustering of the adoption curves, a representative sample of 21 technologies was selected for further evaluation. Published scientific evidence on efficacy/effectiveness and safety of the technologies was identified and extracted in a systematic approach. Derived from a two-dimensional classification according to the degree of utilization and availability of supportive evidence, the diffusion patterns were then assigned to the categories "Success" (widespread/positive), "Hazard" (widespread/negative), "Overadoption" (widespread/limited or none), "Underadoption" (cautious/positive), "Vigilance" (cautious/negative), and "Prudence" (cautious/limited or none).

resultsOverall, we found limited evidence on the examined technologies regarding both the quantity and quality of published randomized controlled trials. Thus, the categories "Prudence" and "Overadoption" together account for nearly three-quarters of the years evaluated, followed by "Success" with 17%. Even when evidence is available, the transfer of knowledge into practice appears to be inhibited.

conclusionsThe successful implementation of safe and effective innovative medical technologies into practice requires substantial further efforts by policymakers to strengthen systematic knowledge generation and translation. Creating an environment that encourages the conduct of rigorous studies, promotes knowledge translation, and rewards innovative medical technologies according to their added value is a prerequisite for the diffusion of valuable health care.

Indexed as

Delivery of Health CareInpatientsHumansAdoptionClinical trialsDiffusion patternsEvidenceGermanyImplementationInpatient careMedical technologiesValue-based health care

Identifiers

PMID34717677
PMCPMC8556925

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.