OBJECTIVE: We reviewed and appraised the methods by which the issue of the learning curve has been addressed during health technology assessment in the past. METHOD: We performed a systematic review of papers in clinical databases (BIOSIS, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, HealthSTAR, MEDLINE, Science Citation Index, and Social Science Citation Index) using the search term "learning curve." RESULTS: The clinical search retrieved 4,571 abstracts for assessment, of which 559 (12%) published articles were eligible for review. Of these, 272 were judged to have formally assessed a learning curve. The procedures assessed were minimal access (51%), other surgical (41%), and diagnostic (8%). The majority of the studies were case series (95%). Some 47% of studies addressed only individual operator performance and 52% addressed institutional performance. The data were collected prospectively in 40%, retrospectively in 26%, and the method was unclear for 31%. The statistical methods used were simple graphs (44%), splitting the data chronologically and performing a t test or chi-squared test (60%), curve fitting (12%), and other model fitting (5%). CONCLUSIONS: Learning curves are rarely considered formally in health technology assessment. Where they are, the reporting of the studies and the statistical methods used are weak. As a minimum, reporting of learning should include the number and experience of the operators and a detailed description of data collection. Improved statistical methods would enhance the assessment of health technologies that require learning.
OBJECTIVE: We reviewed and appraised the methods by which the issue of the learning curve has been addressed during health technology assessment in the past. METHOD: We performed a systematic review of papers in clinical databases (BIOSIS, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, HealthSTAR, MEDLINE, Science Citation Index, and Social Science Citation Index) using the search term "learning curve." RESULTS: The clinical search retrieved 4,571 abstracts for assessment, of which 559 (12%) published articles were eligible for review. Of these, 272 were judged to have formally assessed a learning curve. The procedures assessed were minimal access (51%), other surgical (41%), and diagnostic (8%). The majority of the studies were case series (95%). Some 47% of studies addressed only individual operator performance and 52% addressed institutional performance. The data were collected prospectively in 40%, retrospectively in 26%, and the method was unclear for 31%. The statistical methods used were simple graphs (44%), splitting the data chronologically and performing a t test or chi-squared test (60%), curve fitting (12%), and other model fitting (5%). CONCLUSIONS: Learning curves are rarely considered formally in health technology assessment. Where they are, the reporting of the studies and the statistical methods used are weak. As a minimum, reporting of learning should include the number and experience of the operators and a detailed description of data collection. Improved statistical methods would enhance the assessment of health technologies that require learning.
Authors: J D Hernandez; S D Bann; Y Munz; K Moorthy; V Datta; S Martin; A Dosis; F Bello; A Darzi; T Rockall Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2004-02-02 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Brahmajee K Nallamothu; Hitinder S Gurm; Henry H Ting; Philip P Goodney; Mary A M Rogers; Jeptha P Curtis; Justin B Dimick; Eric R Bates; Harlan M Krumholz; John D Birkmeyer Journal: JAMA Date: 2011-09-28 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Edmund A M Neugebauer; Monika Becker; Gerhard F Buess; Alfred Cuschieri; Hans-Peter Dauben; Abe Fingerhut; Karl H Fuchs; Brigitte Habermalz; Leonid Lantsberg; Mario Morino; Stella Reiter-Theil; Gabriela Soskuty; Wolfgang Wayand; Thilo Welsch Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2010-01-07 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Diana L Miglioretti; Charlotte C Gard; Patricia A Carney; Tracy L Onega; Diana S M Buist; Edward A Sickles; Karla Kerlikowske; Robert D Rosenberg; Bonnie C Yankaskas; Berta M Geller; Joann G Elmore Journal: Radiology Date: 2009-09-29 Impact factor: 11.105