ReviewGHM open2025
Evaluation frameworks for technology transfer projects: Lessons from Japan's global growth of medical technologies initiatives in low- and middle-income countries.
Review in GHM open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Understanding the evaluation framework for assessing the outcomes of projects following complex technology transfer processes is limited. Therefore, we conducted a study to develop and investigate the validity of performance indicators of the technology transfer process. The performance indicators, consisting of ten indicators each for "health technology" and "health products", were developed using the Delphi method and a relationship diagram was generated. To examine validity, correlations between indicators were analyzed using a questionnaire regarding the essential factors influencing health technology and product transfer. A mutual contributory relationship between indicators related to health technology and products may exist. One of the factors promoting technology transfer was projects lasting three or more years, although no significant correlation was detected between other public support utilization and performance indicators. However, the indicators do not fully cover the technology transfer process, such as the pathway to procurement of "health products." Future research is necessary to improve performance indicators through on-site investigations.
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.