This review concludes that: a) the global burden of disease from non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus (NIDDM) cannot be completely estimated at present; b) evidence for the efficacy of key elements of a package of care is still needed; c) generalizing the results of evaluations of costs or effectiveness across different populations is not straightforward; and d) for this complex intervention, the costs and effectiveness of intervention may be highly dependent on methods of organizing care. Addressing this information deficit represents an important task for researchers and health decision makers.

This study examined the conclusions of published reports that review the literature and make recommendations about appropriate applications of bone density measurement. It is based on a survey of 22 organizations producing such reports between 1986 and Spring 1995. Overall, the application of bone density measurement for the diagnosis of osteoporosis was supported by 65% of reports, by 44% for the monitoring and follow-up of patients with previously diagnosed disease, and by 59% for monitoring and follow-up of patients receiving treatment that may affect their bone density. A smaller proportion of reports from government and public organizations compared with other types of organizations and a smaller proportion of reports using more rigorous methods supported the applications for bone density measurement identified in the survey. A larger proportion of the reports published after 1990 compared with those published between 1986 and 1990 support the applications of bone density measurement, with the exception of population screening. The results of this survey suggest that there is considerable disagreement about the potential applications of bone density measurement. Publicly funded organisations and those using more rigorous methods tended to be more conservative in their conclusions.

The choice of surgical procedure for the treatment of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) remains clinically based. A meta-analysis was used to synthesize the results of 24 published clinical studies. Partial breast tissue excision appears to be as efficacious as mastectomy for the treatment of DCIS of the breast.

This reflection on the history of the International Society of Technology Assessment in Health Care is an effort to describe the creation of the Society and its first 10 years of activity. Without analyzing the forces that spurred the growth of technology assessment internationally or linking events, policies, and changes in the various countries, this essay focuses on the persons and events that surrounded the birth and growth of the Society in the past decade.

When I was a doctoral student in health care administration at the University of Chicago, I worked with Odin Anderson, who introduced me to Osier Peterson and Bjprn Smedby. Odin first took me to Sweden in 1966. In early 1970, I met Lee Lusted and heard about clinical decision analysis. My interests, then as now, were the costs and outcomes of hospital care, although the methods I have used to address these problems have varied over time.

There is no doubt that the U.S. Office of Technology Assessment was the leading body in getting technology assessment (TA) into health care. But it was an idea whose time had come. Several people around the world had all begun to look at the same issues, particularly focusing on the introduction of computed tomography (CT) scanners. I sometimes wonder what would have happened to TA if CT scanners had not appeared just at that time!

Technology assessment in health care seeks to evaluate intended and unintended consequences of the use of technology across a broad range that includes health, economic, legal, ethical, and other social implications. In conducting such evaluations, analysts draw on methods and information from an equally broad range of disciplines. The field of technology assessment thus itself conforms to the definition of a technology, that is, the application of knowledge to a purpose.

Less developed countries (LDCs) are limited in medical resources. Medical technology and the management talent required to handle it play a particularly major role in their national health care and has significant economic, political, and ethical ramifications. This study of the assessment process of medical technology in the LDCs proposes a limited framework for the analysis of the major parameters involved, i.e., stakeholders, boundaries and constraints, goals and objectives, criteria to be met, performance measures, and measurement of performance. The importance of the intangible factors is elucidated.

The practice of postoperative artificial nutrition (PAN) in elective surgery was covered by a consensus conference in France (December 16,1994). Artificial nutrition was defined as the intake of at least two macronutrients (protein, lipid, and carbohydrate) through an artificial pathway (enteral/parenteral). The guidelines resulting from the conference (2) recommended prescribing artificial nutrition for only malnourished patients, patients with insufficient postoperative nutrient intake lasting 7 or more days, and patients with severe postoperative complications. These were similar to American guidelines produced in 1993 (1).