Advertisement

Newer Does Not Necessarily Mean Better

  • David J. SamsonEmail author
  • Rifat Latifi

Abstract

One of the most important reasons for hospital transformation and modernization has been research and technological advances. However, in research on policy diffusion, the belief that new ideas should always be adopted has been referred to as pro-innovation bias. This belief is widespread in health care and certainly applies to medical technologies introduced into practice in hospitals. Given that medical technology is the main driver of health-care costs, hospital administrators and clinicians would be prudent to challenge this belief when making decisions about whether to acquire new technology or to encourage use of new interventions.

Keywords

Systematic reviews Evidence-based medicine Grading strength of evidence Pro-innovation bias Superiority Inferiority Equivalence Noninferiority 

References

  1. 1.
    Smith DW, Zhang JJ, Colwell B. Pro-innovation bias: the case of the Giant Texas SmokeScream. J Sch Health. 1996;66:210–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Greenhalgh T. Five biases of new technologies. Br J Gen Pract. 2013;63:425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chalmers I. What is the prior probability of a proposed new treatment being superior to established treatments? BMJ. 1997;314:74–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Callahan D. Health care costs and medical technology. In: From birth to death and bench to clinic: The Hastings Center bioethics briefing book for journalists, policymakers, and campaigns. Garrison: The Hastings Center; 2008. p. 79–82.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Eddy DM. The origins of evidence-based medicine – a personal perspective. Virtual Mentor. 2011;13:55–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chandler J, Higgins JP, Deeks J, Davenport C. Chapter 1: Introduction. In: Clarke MJ, editor. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 5.2.0. The Cochrane Collaboration; 2017. (updated February 2017). https://training.cochrane.org/handbook.
  7. 7.
    Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Schünemann HJ, Tugwell P, Knottnerus A. GRADE guidelines: a new series of articles in the Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64:380–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Balshem H, et al. GRADE guidelines: 3. Rating the quality of evidence. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64:401–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Jenks S, Yeoh SE, Conway BR. Balloon angioplasty, with and without stenting, versus medical therapy for hypertensive patients with renal artery stenosis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014;CD002944.  https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD002944.pub2.
  10. 10.
    Hamilton TW, et al. Liposomal bupivacaine infiltration at the surgical site for the management of postoperative pain. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017;(2):CD011419.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Adam SS, McDuffie JR, Lachiewicz PF, Ortel TL, Williams JW. Comparative effectiveness of new oral anticoagulants and standard thromboprophylaxis in patients having total hip or knee replacement: a systematic review. Ann Intern Med. 2013;159:275–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ambler GK, Radwan R, Hayes PD, Twine CP. Atherectomy for peripheral arterial disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014;CD006680.  https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD006680.pub2.
  13. 13.
    Griffin XL, Parsons N, Costa ML, Metcalfe D. Ultrasound and shockwave therapy for acute fractures in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014;CD008579.  https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD008579.pub3.
  14. 14.
    Riemsma RP, Bala MM, Wolff R, Kleijnen J Transarterial (chemo)embolisation versus no intervention or placebo intervention for liver metastases. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;CD009498.  https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD009498.pub3.
  15. 15.
    Khan L, et al. External beam radiation dose escalation for high grade glioma. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016;CD011475.  https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD011475.pub2.
  16. 16.
    Kucukmetin A, Biliatis I, Naik R, Bryant A. Laparoscopically assisted radical vaginal hysterectomy versus radical abdominal hysterectomy for the treatment of early cervical cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;CD006651.  https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD006651.pub3.
  17. 17.
    Dumville JC, Webster J, Evans D, Land L. Negative pressure wound therapy for treating pressure ulcers. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015;CD011334.  https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD011334.pub2.
  18. 18.
    Dumville JC, Owens GL, Crosbie EJ, Peinemann F, Liu Z. Negative pressure wound therapy for treating surgical wounds healing by secondary intention. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015;CD011278.  https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD011278.pub2.
  19. 19.
    Dumville JC, Land L, Evans D, Peinemann, F. Negative pressure wound therapy for treating leg ulcers. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015;CD011354.  https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD011354.pub2.
  20. 20.
    Eskes A, Vermeulen H, Lucas C, Ubbink DT. Hyperbaric oxygen therapy for treating acute surgical and traumatic wounds. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;CD008059.  https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD008059.pub3.
  21. 21.
    Chang Z, Zheng J, Liu Z. Subintimal angioplasty for lower limb arterial chronic total occlusions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016;(11):CD009418.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Briceno DF, et al. Left atrial appendage occlusion device and novel oral anticoagulants versus warfarin for stroke prevention in Nonvalvular atrial fibrillation: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol. 2015;8:1057–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Thorlund JB, Juhl CB, Roos EM, Lohmander LS. Arthroscopic surgery for degenerative knee: systematic review and meta-analysis of benefits and harms. BMJ. 2015;350:h2747.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Honda M, Kuriyama A, Noma H, Nunobe S, Furukawa TA. Hand-sewn versus mechanical esophagogastric anastomosis after esophagectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Surg. 2013;257:238–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Jagannath VA, Fedorowicz Z, Al Hajeri A, Sharma A. Hematopoietic stem cell transplantation for people with ß-thalassaemia major. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016;(11):CD008708.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Oringanje C, Nemecek E, Oniyangi O. Hematopoietic stem cell transplantation for people with sickle cell disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016;CD007001.  https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD007001.pub4.
  27. 27.
    Zhao JM, et al. Different types of intermittent pneumatic compression devices for preventing venous thromboembolism in patients after total hip replacement. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014;CD009543.  https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD009543.pub3.
  28. 28.
    Fisher SA, Zhang H, Doree C, Mathur A, Martin-Rendon E. Stem cell treatment for acute myocardial infarction. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015;CD006536.  https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD006536.pub4.
  29. 29.
    Noelck N, et al. Effectiveness of left atrial appendage exclusion procedures to reduce the risk of stroke: a systematic review of the evidence. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2016;9:395–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Raman G, et al. Comparative effectiveness of management strategies for renal artery stenosis: an updated systematic review. Ann Intern Med. 2016;165:635–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Dong Z, Xu J, Wang Z, Petrov MS. Stents for the prevention of pancreatic fistula following pancreaticoduodenectomy. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016;CD008914.  https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD008914.pub3.
  32. 32.
    Farquhar C, Marjoribanks J, Lethaby A, Azhar M. High-dose chemotherapy and autologous bone marrow or stem cell transplantation versus conventional chemotherapy for women with early poor prognosis breast cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016;CD003139.  https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD003139.pub3.
  33. 33.
    Fu R, et al. Effectiveness and harms of recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2 in spine fusion: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Intern Med. 2013;158:890–902.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Wertheimer AI. Not everything new is better. Int J Pharm Pract. 2009;17:197–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Vitacca M. New things are not always better: proportional assist ventilation vs. pressure support ventilation. Intensive Care Med. 2003;29:1038–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Roehrborn CG. Drug treatment for LUTS and BPH: new is not always better. Eur Urol. 2006;49:5–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Starkman JS, Scarpero H, Dmochowski RR. Emerging periurethral bulking agents for female stress urinary incontinence: is new necessarily better? Curr Urol Rep. 2006;7:405–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Norton P. New technology in gynecologic surgery: is new necessarily better? Obstet Gynecol. 2006;108:707–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Waksman R. Drug-eluting stents: is new necessarily better? Lancet. 2008;372:1126–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Gao S, Lee P. Prof. David Watson: new things are not always better. J Thorac Dis. 2017;9:E855–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Grann A, Grann VR. The case for randomized trials in cancer treatment: new is not always better. JAMA. 2005;293:1001–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Higginbotham EJ, Alexis D. Is newer necessarily better? The evolution of incisional glaucoma surgery over the last 100 years. Am J Ophthalmol. 2018;191:xxv–xxix.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajo.2018.04.009.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Dilisio MF. Editorial commentary: our mentors were right, new is not always better: the posterolateral shoulder trans-rotator cuff portal is safe for SLAP repairs. Arthroscopy. 2018;34:396–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Gerber R, Studer UE, Danuser H. Is newer always better? A comparative study of 3 lithotriptor generations. J Urol. 2005;173:2013–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Wilensky GR. Robotic surgery: an example of when newer is not always better but clearly more expensive. Milbank Q. 2016;94:43–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Smetana GW. Newer is not always better: all antihypertensive medications do not equally reduce cardiovascular risk. J Gen Intern Med. 2012;27:618–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Puzanov I, Skitzki J. New does not always mean better: isolated limb perfusion still has a role in the management of in-transit melanoma metastases. Oncology (Williston Park). 2016;30:1053–4.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Machin D, et al. Thirty years of Medical Research Council randomized trials in solid tumours. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol). 1997;9:100–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Johnston SC, Rootenberg JD, Katrak S, Smith WS, Elkins JS. Effect of a US National Institutes of Health programme of clinical trials on public health and costs. Lancet. 2006;367:1319–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Soares HP, et al. Evaluation of new treatments in radiation oncology: are they better than standard treatments? JAMA. 2005;293:970–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Djulbegovic B, et al. Treatment success in cancer: new cancer treatment successes identified in phase 3 randomized controlled trials conducted by the National Cancer Institute-sponsored cooperative oncology groups, 1955 to 2006. Arch Intern Med. 2008;168:632–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of SurgeryWestchester Medical CenterValhallaUSA
  2. 2.New York Medical CollegeSchool of Medicine, Department of Surgery and Westchester Medical CenterValhallaUSA

Personalised recommendations