Monitoring and Analysis of Outcome Studies

Vilma A. Joseph, Robert S. Lagasse

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

3 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Monitoring technology appears to be advancing at a rate that exceeds our ability to assess its effectiveness. RCTs are often poorly designed and lack statistical power. Even high-quality RCTs might not provide inferences that can be generalized across all patient populations. Alternative methods of technology assessment such as closed claims analysis, metaanalysis, and statistical process control also have limitations. PORTs using a standard model of combined techniques are beginning to solve some of the more common methodologic problems. The future of technology assessment relies on the ability to conduct large-scale cohort studies from routine practice settings. In terms of intraoperative monitors, this could require production of a complete and valid database of all monitored variables that can be compared with a complete and valid database of appropriate outcome indicators. National standards for collection of data need to be developed. At this time, professional societies should focus more on developing guidelines for technology assessment than guidelines for technology utilization.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)113-130
Number of pages18
JournalInternational Anesthesiology Clinics
Volume42
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - Mar 2004

Fingerprint

Biomedical Technology Assessment
Outcome Assessment (Health Care)
Insurance Claim Review
Databases
Guidelines
Technology
Cohort Studies
Population

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine

Cite this

Monitoring and Analysis of Outcome Studies. / Joseph, Vilma A.; Lagasse, Robert S.

In: International Anesthesiology Clinics, Vol. 42, No. 2, 03.2004, p. 113-130.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Joseph, Vilma A. ; Lagasse, Robert S. / Monitoring and Analysis of Outcome Studies. In: International Anesthesiology Clinics. 2004 ; Vol. 42, No. 2. pp. 113-130.
@article{41e14bc5b8a54164abf3f2ee793713fb,
title = "Monitoring and Analysis of Outcome Studies",
abstract = "Monitoring technology appears to be advancing at a rate that exceeds our ability to assess its effectiveness. RCTs are often poorly designed and lack statistical power. Even high-quality RCTs might not provide inferences that can be generalized across all patient populations. Alternative methods of technology assessment such as closed claims analysis, metaanalysis, and statistical process control also have limitations. PORTs using a standard model of combined techniques are beginning to solve some of the more common methodologic problems. The future of technology assessment relies on the ability to conduct large-scale cohort studies from routine practice settings. In terms of intraoperative monitors, this could require production of a complete and valid database of all monitored variables that can be compared with a complete and valid database of appropriate outcome indicators. National standards for collection of data need to be developed. At this time, professional societies should focus more on developing guidelines for technology assessment than guidelines for technology utilization.",
author = "Joseph, {Vilma A.} and Lagasse, {Robert S.}",
year = "2004",
month = "3",
doi = "10.1097/00004311-200404220-00009",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "42",
pages = "113--130",
journal = "International Anesthesiology Clinics",
issn = "0020-5907",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Monitoring and Analysis of Outcome Studies

AU - Joseph, Vilma A.

AU - Lagasse, Robert S.

PY - 2004/3

Y1 - 2004/3

N2 - Monitoring technology appears to be advancing at a rate that exceeds our ability to assess its effectiveness. RCTs are often poorly designed and lack statistical power. Even high-quality RCTs might not provide inferences that can be generalized across all patient populations. Alternative methods of technology assessment such as closed claims analysis, metaanalysis, and statistical process control also have limitations. PORTs using a standard model of combined techniques are beginning to solve some of the more common methodologic problems. The future of technology assessment relies on the ability to conduct large-scale cohort studies from routine practice settings. In terms of intraoperative monitors, this could require production of a complete and valid database of all monitored variables that can be compared with a complete and valid database of appropriate outcome indicators. National standards for collection of data need to be developed. At this time, professional societies should focus more on developing guidelines for technology assessment than guidelines for technology utilization.

AB - Monitoring technology appears to be advancing at a rate that exceeds our ability to assess its effectiveness. RCTs are often poorly designed and lack statistical power. Even high-quality RCTs might not provide inferences that can be generalized across all patient populations. Alternative methods of technology assessment such as closed claims analysis, metaanalysis, and statistical process control also have limitations. PORTs using a standard model of combined techniques are beginning to solve some of the more common methodologic problems. The future of technology assessment relies on the ability to conduct large-scale cohort studies from routine practice settings. In terms of intraoperative monitors, this could require production of a complete and valid database of all monitored variables that can be compared with a complete and valid database of appropriate outcome indicators. National standards for collection of data need to be developed. At this time, professional societies should focus more on developing guidelines for technology assessment than guidelines for technology utilization.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=1942533035&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=1942533035&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1097/00004311-200404220-00009

DO - 10.1097/00004311-200404220-00009

M3 - Article

VL - 42

SP - 113

EP - 130

JO - International Anesthesiology Clinics

JF - International Anesthesiology Clinics

SN - 0020-5907

IS - 2

ER -