Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Newer Does Not Necessarily Mean Better

  • Chapter
The Modern Hospital

  • 920 Accesses

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 109.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Smith DW, Zhang JJ, Colwell B. Pro-innovation bias: the case of the Giant Texas SmokeScream. J Sch Health. 1996;66:210–3.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Greenhalgh T. Five biases of new technologies. Br J Gen Pract. 2013;63:425.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Chalmers I. What is the prior probability of a proposed new treatment being superior to established treatments? BMJ. 1997;314:74–5.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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. Eddy DM. The origins of evidence-based medicine – a personal perspective. Virtual Mentor. 2011;13:55–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Balshem H, et al. GRADE guidelines: 3. Rating the quality of evidence. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64:401–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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. 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. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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. 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. 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. 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. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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. 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. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Wertheimer AI. Not everything new is better. Int J Pharm Pract. 2009;17:197–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Vitacca M. New things are not always better: proportional assist ventilation vs. pressure support ventilation. Intensive Care Med. 2003;29:1038–40.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Roehrborn CG. Drug treatment for LUTS and BPH: new is not always better. Eur Urol. 2006;49:5–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Norton P. New technology in gynecologic surgery: is new necessarily better? Obstet Gynecol. 2006;108:707–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Waksman R. Drug-eluting stents: is new necessarily better? Lancet. 2008;372:1126–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Gao S, Lee P. Prof. David Watson: new things are not always better. J Thorac Dis. 2017;9:E855–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Grann A, Grann VR. The case for randomized trials in cancer treatment: new is not always better. JAMA. 2005;293:1001–3.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Gerber R, Studer UE, Danuser H. Is newer always better? A comparative study of 3 lithotriptor generations. J Urol. 2005;173:2013–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Wilensky GR. Robotic surgery: an example of when newer is not always better but clearly more expensive. Milbank Q. 2016;94:43–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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. Machin D, et al. Thirty years of Medical Research Council randomized trials in solid tumours. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol). 1997;9:100–14.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Soares HP, et al. Evaluation of new treatments in radiation oncology: are they better than standard treatments? JAMA. 2005;293:970–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Surgery, Westchester Medical Center, Valhalla, NY, USA

    David J. Samson

  2. New York Medical College, School of Medicine, Department of Surgery and Westchester Medical Center, Valhalla, NY, USA

    Rifat Latifi

Authors
  1. David J. Samson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Rifat Latifi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to David J. Samson .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. New York Medical College, School of Medicine, Department of Surgery and Westchester Medical Center, Valhalla, NY, USA

    Rifat Latifi

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Samson, D.J., Latifi, R. (2019). Newer Does Not Necessarily Mean Better. In: Latifi, R. (eds) The Modern Hospital. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-01394-3_16

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-01394-3_16

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-01393-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-01394-3

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation