Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36673840›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of environmental research and public health2023

Factors Influencing the Adoption of Magnetic Resonance-Guided High-Intensity Focused Ultrasound for Painful Bone Metastases in Europe, A Group Concept Mapping Study.

Julia Simões Corrêa Galendi, Ann-Cathrine Siefen, Debora M Moretti, Sin Yuin Yeo, Holger Grüll, Grischa Bratke, Alessio Giuseppe Morganti, Alberto Bazzocchi, Chiara Gasperini, Francesca De Felice and 8 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 33% 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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Cost-utility of focused ultrasound compared to radiotherapy for Dutch patients with uncomplicated non-spinal bone metastases.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2026
    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

18 authors at 9 institutions in 4 countries.

Julia Simões Corrêa GalendiInstitute for Health Economics and Clinical Epidemiology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital of Cologne, University of Cologne, 50935 Cologne, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-4832-7294
Ann-Cathrine SiefenInstitute for Health Economics and Clinical Epidemiology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital of Cologne, University of Cologne, 50935 Cologne, Germany.
Debora M MorettiInstitute for Food and Resource Economics, Chair for Technology, Innovation Management and Entrepreneurship, University of Bonn, 53115 Bonn, Germany.
Sin Yuin YeoInstitute of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital of Cologne, University of Cologne, 50937 Cologne, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-7602-0695
Holger GrüllInstitute of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital of Cologne, University of Cologne, 50937 Cologne, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-0993-9300
Grischa BratkeInstitute of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital of Cologne, University of Cologne, 50937 Cologne, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-5696-9828
Alessio Giuseppe MorgantiRadiation Oncology, IRCCS Azienda Ospedaliero, Universitaria of Bologna, 40138 Bologna, Italy.ORCID 0000-0001-9793-3410
Alberto BazzocchiDiagnostic and Interventional Radiology, IRCCS Istituto Ortopedico Rizzoli, 40136 Bologna, Italy.
Chiara GasperiniDiagnostic and Interventional Radiology, IRCCS Istituto Ortopedico Rizzoli, 40136 Bologna, Italy.
Francesca De FeliceDepartment of Radiotherapy, Policlinico Umberto I, Sapienza University of Rome, 00161 Rome, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-5119-8358
Roberto Blanco SequeirosDepartment of Radiology, Turku University Hospital, 20521 Turku, Finland.ORCID 0000-0002-0167-9639
Mira HuhtalaDepartment of Oncology, Turku University Hospital, University of Turku, 20521 Turku, Finland.
Ingrid M NijholtDepartment of Radiology, Isala Hospital, 8025 AB Zwolle, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-4820-7505
Martijn F BoomsmaDepartment of Radiology, Isala Hospital, 8025 AB Zwolle, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-7878-0970
Clemens BosDivision of Imaging and Oncology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, 3584 CX Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Helena M VerkooijenDivision of Imaging and Oncology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, 3584 CX Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Dirk MüllerInstitute for Health Economics and Clinical Epidemiology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital of Cologne, University of Cologne, 50935 Cologne, Germany.
Stephanie StockInstitute for Health Economics and Clinical Epidemiology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital of Cologne, University of Cologne, 50935 Cologne, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-1726-9300
University of Cologne · DEUtrecht University · NLIstituto Ortopedico Rizzoli · ITAzienda USL di Bologna · ITIsala · NLPoliclinico Umberto I · ITTurku University Hospital · FIUniversity of Bonn · DEUniversity of Turku · FI

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Magnetic resonance imaging-guided high-intensity focused ultrasound (MR-HIFU) is an innovative treatment for patients with painful bone metastases. The adoption of MR-HIFU will be influenced by several factors beyond its effectiveness. To identify contextual factors affecting the adoption of MR-HIFU, we conducted a group concept mapping (GCM) study in four European countries. The GCM was conducted in two phases. First, the participants brainstormed statements guided by the focus prompt "One factor that may influence the uptake of MR-HIFU in clinical practice is...". Second, the participants sorted statements into categories and rated the statements according to their importance and changeability. To generate a concept map, multidimensional scaling and cluster analysis were conducted, and average ratings for each (cluster of) factors were calculated. Forty-five participants contributed to phase I and/or II (56% overall participation rate). The resulting concept map comprises 49 factors, organized in 12 clusters: "competitive treatments", "physicians' attitudes", "alignment of resources", "logistics and workflow", "technical disadvantages", "radiotherapy as first-line therapy", "aggregating knowledge and improving awareness", "clinical effectiveness", "patients' preferences", "reimbursement", "cost-effectiveness" and "hospital costs". The factors identified echo those from the literature, but their relevance and interrelationship are case-specific. Besides evidence on clinical effectiveness, contextual factors from 10 other clusters should be addressed to support adoption of MR-HIFU.

Indexed as

High-Intensity Focused Ultrasound AblationHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingMagnetic Resonance SpectroscopyPainTreatment Outcomebone metastasescancer paindiffusion of innovationgroup concept mappingimplementation scienceMR-HIFU

Identifiers

PMID36673840
PMCPMC9858703
OpenAlexW4313891267

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.