Elizabeth Homs’ ongoing attempt to commit $ 9 billion fraud in Teranos has created a challenge to health technology. For the average patient, physician or investor, these technologies are “black boxes”, the complexity of which is increasingly unclear and uncertain. And while it is challenging to blame this trend on technical complexity, we must note the more subtle reason in the game: the quality and accessibility of “evidence” is declining.

Holmes has made good use of this trend because he has become accustomed to investing in venture capital black boxes, and Teranos has made billions without any scientific evidence. In terms of health care, most of the time, Teranos looked back, not as grateful. Often, uncertainty arises in the form of a sad question: what is the “evidence” that something is important?

We have all seen glowing pharmaceutical TV commercials, incapable blue pills that weaken or prevent heart disease. Although this process is closely monitored by the Food and Drug Administration, we generally believe in medicine Trembling With Defects. However, even with such well-proven and time-tested procedures, transparency remains.

In recent years, this lack of clarity about the evidence and its consequences has been increasing. Digital Therapeutics (DTx)Software interventions designed to prevent, manage, or treat medical illness. Livongo, Omada, and Pierre Therapeutics are just a few of the companies in this area. The range of digital therapies is wide, and current products address symptoms ranging from metabolic disorders to musculoskeletal disorders to mental health conditions. DTx providers often make “clinical verification” claims and try to stay away from many mobile “health” apps (eg, MySpacePal, or Observation apps). But how binding is this foundation of “evidence”?

RCTs are the gold standard for assessing whether a medical product is really useful but these are Rare In Digital Health. Made by some of the best certified products a Single RCT The rest, however, are not anxious to do so. Often, the “evidence” comes Less rigid Studies outside of control groups (e.g., comparable to conventional care). Many DTx companies provide no evidence against them. website. And while some DTx solutions offer clinically significant benefits, others stand on the ground. Earlier this year, for example, Dingx, a DXX company, acquired transcutaneous electric nerve stimulation (TENS) technology for musculoskeletal care. What they did not publish is evidence of the effectiveness of TENS. Better conflicting; a lot Physician’s instructions They recommend that they be removed completely. In general, DXX’s “proven clinical benefits” claims are rarely associated with credible evidence.

Sensitive and sensible patients may consult their physicians on the basis of the evidence for these products. However, many put pressure on their doctor to give them advice on how to use the product. But physicians are overworked and behind, and unable to keep track of the hundreds of thousands of medical publications published each year. And unfortunately, even entrepreneurial patients and well-meaning doctors who are trying to understand the “evidence path” often do not fit in with this. Just as a sushi chef does not get sick of making a bakery, a cardiologist may have more problems than a psychiatrist evaluating digital health experiments. Domain knowledge is very important to understand these studies. Each black box has a different key.

In today’s world of information overload, shortcuts — the opportunity to stop struggling with more options, information, and statistics — are rare and a good vacation. For example, Consumer Reports provides a reliable, well-designed platform with quick, practical insights. We no longer need to browse the Internet for customer reviews and expert comments. It is an analog of medicine. Choosing wisely, Easy-to-access, Jorgon-free guides that promote best practices into effective, cost-effective care.

Digital Therapists need something similar to choosing wisely. Venture Capital (VC) companies may be better placed to help achieve this. Depending on the DTx products, it creates a recognizable feeling Provider Support Because patients trust the knowledge of their doctors. But it is also important to demonstrate the clinical efficacy of VC funds that meet medical technology companies and others – reliably and reliably.

The consequences of false advertising, undermining negative influences, or highlighting unethical results can be devastating. Investors – with long-term reputation, profitability and public motivation – are encouraged to support and link only to high-quality startups. Case Teranos It shows why this is true. In addition, an investor can burn his or her name by identifying himself or herself by verifying medical credentials only through clinically sound, well-researched medical technologies. Medical associations are also important. Finally, the payers are equally well positioned. as such Formulas While providing coverage for digital therapies, payers should be transparent by publishing an internal analysis of various technologies. Data collection improves the need for repetitive assessment processes and implements coverage and high-quality digital therapies.

Health technology has excellent potential. Where available, strict studies show that DTx can. It is greater Or Increase Effectiveness of routine care methods. But he said. No free lunchThese treatments have the potential to increase health care costs, cause delays in finding alternative therapies, and are particularly vulnerable to digital fatigue and inappropriate adherence. To avoid another transient, we – physicians, patients, entrepreneurs, investors – need to open the black box and accurately weigh the risks and benefits of digital therapy.

Author’s note

Dominic L. Fresh and Robert M. Kaplan is a Consultant in Health Science Consulting, LLC.