Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42638690›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in pharmacology2026

From product to knowledge: the life cycle of health technologies 2.0 as a framework for health system improvement.

M Otte, I Gutiérrez-Ibarluzea, H P Dauben

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in pharmacology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

3 authors.

M OtteInnovationsinstitut für Gesundheit und Gesellschaft gUG (I2GG gUG), Jüchen, Germany.
I Gutiérrez-IbarluzeaEuroScan international network e. V., Cologne, Germany.
H P DaubenInnovationsinstitut für Gesundheit und Gesellschaft gUG (I2GG gUG), Jüchen, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Existing life cycle frameworks for health technologies have mainly adopted a product-oriented perspective. They treating evidence as a linear input to discrete regulatory and coverage decisions, and failing to capture the iterative, context-dependent, stakeholder-specific nature of knowledge generation needed for contemporary health-technology governance. Objectives: This article introduces the Life Cycle of Health Technologies 2.0 (LC 2.0), an updated conceptual framework building on the Life Cycle of Health Technologies (2017, LC 1.0). It traces the evolution from LC 1.0 to LC 2.0, conceptualises LC 2.0 as a knowledge life cycle, and outlines illustrative use cases. LC 2.0 integrates existing conceptual approaches to explore how knowledge about a health technology develops across stakeholder groups across different processes. In line with the Health for All Policies concept, it links this knowledge life cycle to societal, system and patient needs within and beyond the health sector. Methods: A mixed-methods approach was applied comprising multi-stakeholder workshops and use-case validation across four technology types. Results: Workshops identified revision requirements in LC 1.0 across macro, meso and micro levels, centring on structural inflexibility, implicit post-market learning and limited integration of contextual and stakeholder knowledge. The LC 2.0 framework addresses these through an infinity-loop structure with six phases and twelve subprocesses. It makes knowledge generation an explicit function at every phase and maps knowledge requirements to stakeholder roles. It also incorporates flexible, non-sequential pathways, including a cross-phase transition point (X) as governance decision point between research and development and between continued optimisation and more fundamental revision. Conclusion: LC 2.0 reconceives the health-technology life cycle as an iterative knowledge-generation and decision-supporting service, structuring what must be learned, by whom and when, to support appropriate technology use, needs-driven innovation and regulator-appropriate evidence generation, and to provide a shared reference framework for stakeholders inside and adjacent to healthcare and regulatory systems. This shared structure also facilitates easier exchange between different health-system contexts.

Indexed as

evidence-based medicinehealth system governancehealth technology assessmentknowledge generationlife cycle frameworkreal-world evidencestakeholder engagement

Identifiers

PMID42638690
PMCPMC13500488

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.