Jump to: Page Content, Site Navigation, Site Search,
You are seeing this message because your web browser does not support basic web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.
BMJ 2004;329:3-4 (3 July), doi:10.1136/bmj.329.7456.3
Unlike drugs, are implemented despite paucity of evidence
| The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below. |
In contrast to pharmaceuticals, new surgical and other invasive procedures often enter clinical practice without assessment of their safety and efficacy. There is usually no guidance on their use. As a result, patients are offered treatments without access to adequate information on the nature and likelihood of benefits and harms; clinicians are left uncertain as to which innovations to adopt; and hospitals and healthcare systems have difficulty managing the risks that these procedures pose.1
Why does this happen? A fundamental reason is the poor evidence base for new interventional procedures, which has a number of causes. Unlike new pharmaceuticals, procedures do not usually have a commercial sponsor, which makes research harder to fund. When procedures entail a medical device, manufacturers have some incentive to fund evaluations, but differences in the regulatory regimes for drugs and devices, and in manufacturers' priorities for investment in research, mean that randomised trials are scarce.
Tom Dent, director, interventional procedures programme
(tom.dent@nice.nhs.uk)
Sally Wortley, analyst, interventional procedures programme, Bruce Campbell, chairman, interventional procedures advisory committee
National Institute for Clinical Excellence, London WC1V 6NA
Read all Rapid Responses
UK medical students have published unreleased government plans to restrict failed asylum seekers' access to medical care