Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40051729›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in medicine2025

Defining the value proposition in diagnostic technology: challenges and opportunities for its understanding and development - a review with a multiperspective reflective analysis.

Tayana Soukup, Bernarda Zamora-Talaya, Shayan Bahadori, Rosario Luxardo, Patrick Kierkegaard, Omar Butt, Hannah Kettley-Linsell, Katerina-Vanessa Savva, Massimo Micocci, Shanshan Zhou and 8 more

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. 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.

Tayana Soukup *Department of Surgery and Cancer, Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.
Bernarda Zamora-Talaya *Department of Surgery and Cancer, Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.
Shayan BahadoriDepartment of Surgery and Cancer, Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.
Rosario LuxardoDepartment of Surgery and Cancer, Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.
Patrick KierkegaardCancer Research UK Convergence Science Centre at The Institute of Cancer Research, London, and Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.
Omar ButtDepartment of Surgery and Cancer, Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.
Hannah Kettley-LinsellDepartment of Surgery and Cancer, Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.
Katerina-Vanessa SavvaDepartment of Surgery and Cancer, Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.
Massimo MicocciDepartment of Surgery and Cancer, Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.
Shanshan ZhouDepartment of Surgery and Cancer, Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.
Simon NewmanRoyal National Orthopaedic Hospital NHS Trust, London, United Kingdom.
Simon WalneDepartment of Surgery and Cancer, Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.
Christopher J PetersDepartment of Surgery and Cancer, Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.
Adam GordonWolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom.
Melody NiDepartment of Surgery and Cancer, Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.
Peter BuckleDepartment of Surgery and Cancer, Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.
George B HannaDepartment of Surgery and Cancer, Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.
NIHR HRC IVD PPIE Team

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: The Value Proposition (VP) in diagnostic technology serves as a "positioning statement" outlining the unique benefits, costs, and differentiation an innovation under development offers to healthcare organizations and its ability to effectively deliver these advantages in comparison to current interventions in the market. Despite its significance however, VP lacks a universally accepted definition, which is compounded by the diversity of technologies, their applications, and the varying needs of stakeholders. This paper aims to address this gap by offering a detailed conceptual analysis, revised definition of VP, and actionable recommendations for advancing VP development. Methodology: We conducted a targeted narrative review, focusing on literature explicitly defining VPs in diagnostic technologies. Using Ovid's Medline and Embase databases, we identified 19 relevant papers, of which only 5 provided explicit VP definitions. Our analysis incorporated principles of team science, encompassing reflective and thematic analyses of (1) interdisciplinary co-author discussions enabling us to weave together diverse insights into a cohesive exploration of the topic, and (2) MTech's publicly available set of anonymised responses from NHS Associates, to capture the perspectives of the decision-makers and further enhance depth and breadth of our discourse. Results and discussion: Our findings highlight the multifaceted nature of VP and its primary hurdles: inadequate identification of unmet needs and insufficient recognition of key stakeholders. We synthesized the evolution of VP definitions and explored the importance of unmet needs in their development, guided by frameworks, such as the Health Technology Navigation Pathway Tool, to ensure VPs meet both the pragmatic and aspirational goals of the healthcare. Thematic insights revealed opportunities for addressing these barriers through implementation science and collaborative strategies. This multi-perspective approach provided a conceptual examination of VP, enabling integration of varied viewpoints and insights. Conclusion: By employing team science principles and reflective analysis, we introduced a revised definition of VP and a set of actionable recommendations to guide VP development in diagnostics. These findings highlight the importance of addressing stakeholder diversity, unmet needs, and the intricacies of blending interdisciplinary perspectives to advance the field.

Indexed as

conceptual frameworkdiagnosticsdigital healthstakeholder perspectivesvalue proposition

Identifiers

PMID40051729
PMCPMC11884263

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.