Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dlnhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T06:30:03.602Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Method for the Detailed Assessment of the Appropriateness of Medical Technologies

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 March 2009

Robert H. Brook ,
Mark R. Chassin ,
Arlene Fink ,
David H. Solomon ,
Jacqueline Kosecoff  and
R. E. Park
Robert H. Brook
Affiliation:
University of California, Los Angeles Rand Corporation
Mark R. Chassin
Affiliation:
University of California, Los Angeles Rand Corporation
Arlene Fink
Affiliation:
University of California, Los Angeles Rand Corporation
David H. Solomon
Affiliation:
University of California, Los Angeles Rand Corporation
Jacqueline Kosecoff
Affiliation:
University of California, Los Angeles
R. E. Park
Affiliation:
University of California, Los Angeles
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The standard way to assess medical technologies is to conduct a randomized clinical trial. Patients are randomly assigned to groups receiving alternative treatments, and outcomes are monitored over a long period of time. For example, some victims of left main coronary artery disease may undergo coronary artery bypass surgery, and others may receive medical treatment with nitroglycerine and beta blockers. Comparison of five-year mortality and morbidity in the two groups helps to determine the relative appropriateness of the two procedures. In addition, information about quality of life and cost can also be collected and compared.

Type
Technology Assessment: Policy, Clinical, and Methodological Issues
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 2 , Issue 1 , January 1986 , pp. 53 - 63
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1986

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1.Brook, R. H., Lohr, K. N., Chassin, M. et al. , Geographic variations in the use of services: Do they have clinical significance? Health Affairs, 1984, 3, 62–73.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2.Chassin, M. R., Brook, R. H., Park, R. E. et al. , Variations in the use of medical and surgical services by the Medicare population. R-3288-CWF/PMT/HF/RWJ, The Rand Corporation, Santa Monica, Cal., forthcoming.Google Scholar
3.Fink, A., Ed. A review of the literature and ratings of the appropriateness of indications for selected medical and surgical procedures. Series R-3204-CWF/PMT/HF/RWJ, The Rand Corporation, Santa Monica, Cal., forthcoming.Google Scholar
4.McPherson, K., Strong, P. M., Jones, L., & Britton, B. J.Do cholecystectomy rates correlate with geographic variations in the prevalence of gallstones? Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 1985, 39, 179–182.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5.Park, R. E., Fink, A., Brook, R. H. et al. , Physician ratings of appropriate indications for six medical and surgical procedures. Series R-3280-CWF/PMT/HF/RWJ, The Rand Corporation, Sana Monica, Cal., forthcoming.Google Scholar
6.Shaffer, E. A.Gallstone formation and asymptomatic cholelithiasis, Annals RCPSC, 1985, 18, 309–315.Google Scholar
7.Wennberg, J. E., & Gittlesohn, A. M.Small area variations in health care delivery. Science, 1973, 182, 1102–1108.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8.Wennberg, J. E., Gittelsohn, A., & Shapiro, N.Health care delivery in Maine I: Patterns of use of common surgical procedures. Maine Medical Association, 1975, 66, 123–130.Google Scholar