Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-hvd4g Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-07T16:20:14.284Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Method of Information Synthesis and Its Use in the Assessment of Health Care Technology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 March 2009

Susan H. Marcus ,
Prakash L. Grover  and
Dennis A. Revicki
Susan H. Marcus
Affiliation:
Veterans Administration Medical Center, Maryland
Prakash L. Grover
Affiliation:
Veterans Administration Medical Center, Maryland
Dennis A. Revicki
Affiliation:
Battelle Human Affairs Research Center, Washington, D.C.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper compares information synthesis to literature review and meta-analysis as tools for the researcher trying to summarize published information and identify information gaps on emerging technologies. Because information synthesis is narrowly focused and addresses the question of what is not known, as well as what is known, it is a good precursor to a full-scale technology assessment. An example of information synthesis is given, comparing cost-effectiveness of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy to two other treatments for kidney stones.

Type
General Essays
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 3 , Issue 4 , October 1987 , pp. 497 - 508
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1987

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

1.Alder, H. C.Lithotripters: Noninvasive devices for the treatment of kidney stones. Chicago, IL: American Hospital Association, 1985.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2.AUA. Report of the AUA Ad Hoc Committee to study the safety and clinical efficacy of current technology of percutaneous lithotripsy and non-invasive lithotripsy. Baltimore, MD: American Urological Association, 1985.Google Scholar
3.Brannen, G. E., Bush, W. H., Correa, R. J., Gibbons, R. P., & Elder, J. S.Kidney stone removal: Percutaneous verus surgical lithotomy. Journal of Urology, 1985, 133, 6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4.Chaussy, C., Schmiedt, E., Jocham, D., Schuller, J., Brandl, H., & Liedl, B.Extra-corporeal shock-wave lithotripsy (ESWL) for treatment of urolithiasis. Special issue to Urology, 1984, 23, 59.Google Scholar
5.Chelimsky, E., & Morra, L. Evaluation synthesis for the legislative user. In Yeaton, W. H. & Wortman, P. M. (eds.), Issues in data synthesis. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Inc., 1984. 75.Google Scholar
6. Data-base. Medline. National Library of Medicine, 1985.Google Scholar
7. Data-base. Bibliographic Retrieval Services, 1985.Google Scholar
8.Finlayson, B., & Thomas, W. C.Extracorporeal shock-wave lithotripsy. Annals of Internal Medicine, 1984, 101, 387–389.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9.Goldschmidt, P.Information synthesis: A practical guide. Washington, DC: HSR&D Division, 1984.Google Scholar
10.Griffith, D. P.Trends in the management of patients with urinary stones. Atlanta, GA: AUA Eightieth Annual Meeting, 1985.Google Scholar
11.Griffith, D. P., Alken, P., Chaussy, C., Clayman, R., Marberger, M., Segura, J., & Smith, A.Controversies in stone management. New York: Third World Congress on Endurology, 1985.Google Scholar
12.Gross, P. F., & Goldstein, G.Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy: A preliminary analysis of its likely impact in Australia. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 1985, 1, 200–215.Google Scholar
13.Hunter, J. E., Schmidt, F. L., & Jackson, G. B. Meta-analysis: Cumulating research findings across studies. In Study organizations: Innovations in methodology. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications, 1982.Google Scholar
14.Levin, H. M. Cost-effectiveness analysis in evaluation research. In Guttentag, M., & Streuning, E. L. (eds.), Handbook of evaluation research. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications, 1975, 89.Google Scholar
15.Light, R. J., & Pillemer, D. B.The science of reviewing research. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1984.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16.Lingeman, J. E., Newman, D. M., Coury, T. A., Kahnoskik, R. J., & J., WoodsCost comparison–open surgery vs. percutaneous nephrostolithotomy vs. extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (abstract). Journal of Urology, 1985, 133, 313A.Google Scholar
17.Marcus, S. H., & Grover, P. L.The cost-effectiveness of lithotripsy: An information synthesis. Washington, DC: HSR&D Division, 1986.Google Scholar
18.Marnick, C., & Gunby, P.FDA approves lithotripter for kidney stone shattering. Journal of the American Medical Association, 1985, 253, 620–623.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
19.Miller, K., Fuchs, G., Rassweiler, J., & Eisenberger, F.Financial analysis, personnel planning and organizational requirements for the installation of kidney lithotripter in a urologie department. European Urology, 1984, 10, 217–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
20.Mobaugh, P., Newman, D., Lingeman, J. et al. , Cost comparisons of the options currently available in the treatment of upper urinary tract stone disease. Indianapolis: Methodist Institute for Kidney Stone Disease, 1985.Google Scholar
21.Mulley, A. G., & Carlson, K. J.Lithotripsy. Philadelphia, PA: American College of Physicians, 1985.Google Scholar
22.Newman, D. M. Personal communication. 1985.Google Scholar
23.O'Brien, E.Lithotriptor: Analysis of a new technology and guidelines for introduction to greater Boston. Boston, MA: Health Planning Council, 1983.Google Scholar
24.Power, E. J.Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy and the Medicare prospective payment system. Washington, DC: Office of Technology Assessment, 1985.Google Scholar
25.Rosenthal, R. Meta-analytic procedures for social research. In Applied social research method series. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications, 1984.Google Scholar
26. Technology. Lithotripter cuts need for stone surgery. Hospitals, 1984, 58, 56–58.Google Scholar
27. Technology. Ohio hospitals enter joint effort to acquire coveted lithotripter. Hospitals, 1985, 59, 42.Google Scholar
28.Warner, K. E., & Hutton, R. C.Cost benefit and cost-effectiveness in health care: Growth and composition of literature. Medical Care, 1980, 88, 1069–1084.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
29.Weinstein, M. C., & Stason, W. B.Foundations of cost-effectiveness analysis for health and medical practices. New England Journal of Medicine, 1977, 296, 716–721.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed