The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Technology Assessment
Abstract
Who should ultimately decide what is standard therapy,state-of-the-art, or investiga- tional: juries, judges, politicians, scientists, providers,patients, or payers? This question has no clear answer. This chapter strongly recommends that health care administrators, providers, and payers should all be familiar with the elements of technology assessment as a means of monitoring the quality and cost-effectiveness of health care delivery and should utilize epidemiological information, particularly on utilization trends and studies of risks versus benefits of new technologies. Future health care administrators, as important decision makers in new technology acquisition, must possess a comprehensive understanding of the issues involved in the process of technology assessment as well as the ability to interpret the primary medical literature knowledgeably, using epidemiological methods to assess the relative merits and limitations of new technologies. In this way, proactive technology decisions will be made, not reactive decisions based on external pressures.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
The MOS 36-ltem Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36): I. Conceptual Framework and Item Selection
Ware, J. E., & Sherbourne, C. D. (1992) · Medical Care · doi:10.1097/00005650-199206000-00002 · Cited by 30,033
Beta blockade during and after myocardial infarction: An overview of the randomized trials
Yusuf, S., Peto, R., Lewis, J., Collins, R., & Sleight, P. (1985) · Progress in Cardiovascular Diseases · doi:10.1016/s0033-0620(85)80003-7 · Cited by 3,205
Modeling and variable selection in epidemiologic analysis
Greenland, S. (1989) · American Journal of Public Health · doi:10.2105/ajph.79.3.340 · Cited by 2,208
An Assessment of Clinically Useful Measures of the Consequences of Treatment
Laupacis, A., Sackett, D. L., & Roberts, R. S. (1988) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejm198806303182605 · Cited by 1,681
A method for assessing the quality of a randomized control trial
Chalmers, T. C., Smith, H., Blackburn, B., Silverman, B., Schroeder, B., Reitman, D., & Ambroz, A. (1981) · Controlled Clinical Trials · doi:10.1016/0197-2456(81)90056-8 · Cited by 1,349
Cited by
Financing renewable energy: Who is financing what and why it matters
Mazzucato, M., & Semieniuk, G. (2018) · Technological Forecasting and Social Change · doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2017.05.021 · Cited by 687
Midstream Modulation of Technology: Governance From Within
Fisher, E., Mahajan, R. L., & Mitcham, C. (2006) · Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society · doi:10.1177/0270467606295402 · Cited by 373
Obesity Without Sleep Apnea Is Associated With Daytime Sleepiness
Vgontzas, A. N., Bixler, E. O., Tan, T.-L., Kantner, D., Martin, L. F., & Kales, A. (1998) · Archives of Internal Medicine · doi:10.1001/archinte.158.12.1333 · Cited by 329
Barry, D. T., Beitel, M., Cutter, C. J., Garnet, B., Joshi, D., Schottenfeld, R. S., & Rounsaville, B. J. (2009) · American Journal on Addictions · doi:10.3109/10550490903077671 · Cited by 23
Coley, N., Gallini, A., Garès, V., Gardette, V., Andrieu, S., Vellas, B., Reynish, E., Ousset, P. J., Andrieu, S., Burns, A., et al. (2015) · Journal of the American Medical Directors Association · doi:10.1016/j.jamda.2015.09.010 · Cited by 20
Metadata
- Authors
- Matuszewski, K. A.
- Venue
- Epidemiology and the Delivery of Health Care Services
- Publisher
- Kluwer Academic Publishers
- Published
- 2005-12-16
- Pages
- 235-260
- OpenAlex
- W4255959192
- Cited by
- 337
- References
- 5
- FWCI
- 48.28
- Type
- book chapter
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Technology Assessment. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1007/0-306-47557-x_10
- The paper
- Matuszewski, K. A. (2005). Technology Assessment. Epidemiology and the Delivery of Health Care Services. https://doi.org/10.1007/0-306-47557-x_10
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
