Article    Table of Contents                    Full Text of this article Free    Figures/Tables List  Services    Send comment/rapid response letter    Notify a friend about this article    Alert me when this article is cited    Add to Personal Archive    Download to Citation Manager    ACP Search                            Get Permissions  Google Scholar    Search for Related Content  PubMed Articles in PubMed by Author:    Diamond, G. A.    Denton, T. A.    Related Articles in PubMed    PubMed Citation    PubMed

PERSPECTIVE

Alternative Perspectives on the Biased Foundations of Medical Technology Assessment

George A. Diamond and Timothy A. Denton

15 March 1993 | Volume 118 Issue 6 | Pages 455-464

Medical technology assessment seeks to improve the care of individual patients (the conventional unit of clinical practice) through evaluation studies conducted in groups of patients (the conventional unit of clinical investigation).This distinction between individuals and groups has practical relevance to the design, analysis, and clinical applicability of technology assessment studies. We define several biased perspectives about technology assessment that derive from the distinction between individuals and groups: a misguided emphasis on efficacy versus effectiveness, on statistical significance versus clinical importance, and on objective versus subjective outcomes. In each case, we contrast these alternative perspectives and speculate on their implications for health care policy.

Author and Article Information

From Cedars-Sinai Medical Center and the School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, California.
Requests for Reprints: George A. Diamond, M.D., Division of Cardiology, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, 8700 Beverly Boulevard, Los Angeles, CA 90048.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				S. D. Halpern, R. Doyle, and S. M. Kawut The Ethics of Randomized Clinical Trials in Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension Proceedings of the ATS, July 15, 2008; 5(5): 631 - 635. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				G. A. Diamond and S. Kaul COURAGE Under Fire: On the Management of Stable Coronary Disease J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., October 16, 2007; 50(16): 1604 - 1609. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				G. A. Diamond and S. Kaul Prior convictions: bayesian approaches to the analysis and interpretation of clinical megatrials J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., June 2, 2004; 43(11): 1929 - 1939. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				G. W. Torrance, M. F. Drummond, and V. Walker Switching Therapy in Health Economics Trials: Confronting the Confusion Med Decis Making, July 1, 2003; 23(4): 335 - 340. [Abstract] [PDF]

				T. P. Hofer and R. A. Hayward Are Bad Outcomes from Questionable Clinical Decisions Preventable Medical Errors? A Case of Cascade Iatrogenesis Ann Intern Med, September 3, 2002; 137(5_Part_1): 327 - 333. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				W. H. Geerts, J. A. Heit, G. P. Clagett, G. F. Pineo, C. W. Colwell, F. A. Anderson Jr., and H. B. Wheeler Prevention of Venous Thromboembolism Chest, January 1, 2001; 119(1_suppl): 132S - 175S. [Full Text] [PDF]

				D. R. Thiemann, J. Coresh, S. P. Schulman, G. Gerstenblith, W. J. Oetgen, and N. R. Powe Lack of Benefit for Intravenous Thrombolysis in Patients With Myocardial Infarction Who Are Older Than 75 Years Circulation, May 16, 2000; 101(19): 2239 - 2246. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				T. A Sheldon, G. H Guyatt, and A. Haines Getting research findings into practice: When to act on the evidence BMJ, July 11, 1998; 317(7151): 139 - 142. [Full Text]

				K. R. Epstein, C. Laine, N. J. Farber, E. C. Nelson, and F. Davidoff Patients' Perceptions of Office Medical Practice: Judging Quality through the Patients' Eyes American Journal of Medical Quality, June 1, 1996; 11(2): 73 - 80. [Abstract] [PDF]

				A. Y. Chen, J. Daley, and G. E. Thibault Angina Patients' Ratings of Current Health and Health without Angina: Associations with Severity of Angina and Comorbidity Med Decis Making, June 1, 1996; 16(2): 169 - 177. [Abstract] [PDF]