Assessment of the learning curve in health technologies. A systematic review.
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.


METHODS
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.
Ramsay
C R
CR
University of Aberdeen.
Grant
A M
AM
Wallace
S A
SA
Garthwaite
P H
PH
Monk
A F
AF
Russell
I T
IT
D020811:Biomedical Technology; D002983:Clinical Competence; D004059:Diffusion of Innovation; D006801:Humans; D007858:Learning; D012107:Research Design; D013223:Statistics as Topic / Q000379:methods; D013673:Technology Assessment, Biomedical / Q000379:methods*