ReviewFrontiers in public health2025
Introducing and utilizing innovative technologies in health care systems: a country comparison for peripheral drug-eluting stents in Germany and the USA.
Review in Frontiers in public health, 2025. 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.
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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Drug-eluting stents in the upper leg (DES-UL) are used to treat diseases of the peripheral vessels that are associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular events and are prevalent in industrialized countries such as Germany and the USA. Innovative technologies like DES-UL can bring great benefits to patients, possibly representing the only treatment option. However, they also entail risks since reliable evidence on efficacy/effectiveness and safety are often not available at the beginning of products' life cycles. The aim of the study is to examine utilization of DES-UL in German and US-American hospitals and the development of evidence on efficacy/effectiveness and safety for DES-UL over time. To identify evidence, we conducted a systematic literature search in four biomedical databases (2006-2022) for articles on clinical trials that we categorized by predefined characteristics, including studies' level of evidence (LoE) and population sizes, and the articles' conclusions regarding the technology's efficacy/effectiveness and safety clustered "positive", "indecisive", "neutral", or "negative". Additionally, we searched for clinical trial registry entries, HTA reports, clinical guidelines, safety notices & recalls, market approval dates, and financing instruments. The utilization of DES-UL was operationalized by annual hospital case numbers. We identified a total of 2,724 publications, of which 123 remained relevant after title/abstract and full text screening. In the early phase of the observation period of DES-UL utilization, the evidence development is characterized by a few articles on studies of low LoE and small population studies. Over time, the body of evidence expands, and articles on studies of high LoE (e.g., RCTs) and larger population sizes were published. Overall, articles with "positive" (n = 41) and "indecisive" (n = 58) conclusions predominate, with especially "positive" conclusions pointing to the efficacy/effectiveness and safety of DES-UL. Overall, utilization of DES-UL in hospitals increased in both Germany and the USA, although not uniformly across all years. An influence of various events on the case numbers' development can be assumed. Health policy makers must ensure that efficacy/effectiveness and safety of technologies are evaluated appropriately. Therefore, robust evidence should be generated and made accessible to clinical and health decision-makers in a timely manner and promptly reflected in clinical guidelines.
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.