Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Observational Study
. 2025 May 30;23(1):72.
doi: 10.1186/s12961-025-01342-8.

Mind the (research) gap: a retrospective observational study on the utilization of new medical technologies and related research activities in German hospitals

Affiliations
Observational Study

Mind the (research) gap: a retrospective observational study on the utilization of new medical technologies and related research activities in German hospitals

Tanja Rombey et al. Health Res Policy Syst. .

Abstract

Objectives: Hospitals play a major role in generating clinical evidence on new medical technologies. Thus far, the extent of German hospitals' contribution to the evidence base has not been sufficiently investigated. This study aims to: (1) examine the utilization of new medical technologies in German hospitals and its relationship to different hospital characteristics; (2) investigate the participation of German hospitals in research on these technologies and the association between hospital characteristics and research involvement; and (3) investigate the contribution of German hospitals to international research activities, including the levels of evidence of any studies conducted.

Methods: Using a systematically derived sample of 13 new medical technologies and various data sources, we retrospectively analyzed the utilization of and research activities by German hospitals between 2005 and 2017 and explored which hospital characteristics they were associated with. The data were analyzed descriptively and are expressed as bar plots, box plots, quartiles, and crude odds ratios (ORs).

Results: The proportion of German hospitals using new technologies while also being involved in related clinical research was relatively low (ranging from 0.3% to 29.4%, except for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI), with 60.7%), particularly for prospective studies. Research involvement was positively associated with university hospital status, larger bed capacity, and public ownership. Overall, the research involving German hospitals predominantly consisted of single-arm studies and not randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

Conclusions: Our study identified a gap between hospitals using new medical technologies and their involvement in evidence generation. This imbalance can contribute to uncertainty regarding the actual efficacy, effectiveness and safety of new medical technologies. To ensure evidence-based patient care, it is therefore essential to strengthen the link between research and practice, in both directions. A first step to achieve this could entail restricting the use of new medical technologies to specialized innovation centers (e.g., university hospitals, specialized hospitals) during the initial years of their utilization to ensure an adequate evidence base is generated before widespread implementation.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Declarations. Ethics approval and consent to participate: Not applicable. Consent for publication: Not applicable. Competing interests: The authors declare no competing interests.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Flow chart of the data sources, variables and selection process
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Odds ratios for research involvement by hospital characteristics; 95% confidence intervals

Similar articles

References

    1. World Health Organization. Global Spending on Health Weathering the Storm. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2020.
    1. Willemé P, Dumont M. Machines that go ‘ping’: medical technology and health expenditures in OECD Countries. Health Econ. 2015;24(8):1027–41. 10.1002/hec.3089. - PubMed
    1. Cutler DM, McClellan M. Is technological change in medicine worth it? Health Aff (Millwood). 2001;20(5):11–29. 10.1377/hlthaff.20.5.11. - PubMed
    1. Pagoto SL, Lemon SC. Efficacy vs effectiveness. JAMA Intern Med. 2013;173(13):1262–3. 10.1001/jamainternmed.2013.6521. - PubMed
    1. Haynes B. Can it work? Does it work? Is it worth it? The testing of healthcare interventions is evolving. BMJ. 1999;319(7211):652–3. 10.1136/bmj.319.7211.652. - PMC - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms

LinkOut - more resources