Skip to main content
×
×
Home

The Clinical Efficacy Assessment Project of the American Collegeof Physicians

  • Linda Johnson White (a1) and John R. Ball (a1)
Extract

Throughout the history of the development and use of medical technologies (phar-maceuticals, laboratory tests, invasive and noninvasive procedures, and medical devices), physicians and their patients have been the primary assessors of a technology's worth. If a drug, test, or procedure produces consistent beneficial effects, with little or no risk, then such a technology is commonly added to the clinician's arsenal of weapons against illness and disease. Academic researchers, however, with their keen desires to find new and better ways to diagnose, treat, and cure, are relied upon to produce evidence documenting a technology's efficacy. Others engaged in technology assessment activities—from their own perspectives—include manufacturers, who produce data showing the value of the products they hope to sell; hospitals that wish to make cost-effective purchases; and government agencies, with mandates to protect the public and to spend public dollars wisely. Still, it is the practicing physician who ultimately judges a technology's value based upon its use in individual clinical situations. Until very recently, with the apparent adequacy of these evaluative methods, medical professional societies were not required to enter the technology assessment arena.

Copyright
References
Hide All
1.Smits, H. L.The clinical context of technology assessment. Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law. 1984, 9(1), 3140.
2.Schwartz, J. S.The role of professional medical societies in reducing practice variations. Health Affairs, Summer 1984, 3(2), 90101.
3.Schwartz, J. S., Ball, J. R., & Moser, R. H.Safety, efficacy and effectiveness of clinical practices: A new initiative. Annals of Internal Medicine, 1982, 96, 146–47.
4. American College of Physicians. Clinical Efficacy Assessment Project Procedural Manual, 1983.
5.Medical Practice Committee, American College of Physicians. Pneumococcal vaccine recommendation. Annals of Internal Medicine, 1982, 96, 306–7.
6.Health and Public Policy Committee, American College of Physicians. Selected methods for the management of diabetes mellitus. Annals of Internal Medicine, 1983, 99, 272–4.
7.Health and Public Policy Committee, American College of Physicians. Percutaneous transluminal angioplasty. Annals of Internal Medicine, 1983, 99, 864–69.
8.Health and Public Policy, American College of Physicians. Performance of Ergonovine Provocative Testing for Coronary Artery Spasm. Annals of Internal Medicine, 1984, 100, 151–2.
9.Health and Public Policy Committee, American College of Physicians. Hepatitis B vaccine. Annals of Internal Medicine, 1984, 100, 149–50.
10.Health and Public Policy Committee, American College of Physicians. The dexamethasone suppression test for the detection, diagnosis, and management of depression. Annals of Internal Medicine, 1984, 100, 307–8.
11.Health and Public Policy Commmittee, American College of Physicians. Endoscopic sclerotherapy for esophageal varices. Annals of Internal Medicine, 1984, 100, 608–10.
12. Survey of the use of Clinical Efficacy Assessment Project recommendations issued by the American College of Physicians, Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association, Chicago, IL, July 1984.
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care
  • ISSN: 0266-4623
  • EISSN: 1471-6348
  • URL: /core/journals/international-journal-of-technology-assessment-in-health-care
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×

Metrics

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 2 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 67 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 12th June 2018. This data will be updated every 24 hours.