Where’s Your Publication Track Record?

With routine market-facing activities on pause, now’s the time to enhance your credibility in the market.

Medtech stakeholders demand evidentiary support of your clinical and economic value, and creating a compelling value story involves effectively proving that your technology outshines competitors with real world evidence – particularly in crowded sectors of the market (e.g. cardiac).  One of the most effective ways of demonstrating this is through peer-reviewed publications.

An extensive track record can:

  • Improve your credibility in the market surrounding your technology
  • Attract new investors to your technology
  • Help to enhance knowledge within bodies of research
  • Contribute evidence to inform or update clinical guidelines

Ian online search of your technology provides little more than press releases and marketing pieces, you’re endangering your potential share of the market. 

Even if your definitive studies are not completed, you can still start publishing to build your track record and establish credibility. Exploratory studies are valuable for more than just informing large scale, definitive studies – they are an opportunity for generating buzz in the marketplace surrounding your technology. Peer-reviewed, exploratory publications can attract a following around your technology.

Case Study: Delivering 3 Clinical-Economic Studies in 1 Year

Our client needed to generate real-world evidence to demonstrate their product’s value (a minimally invasive procedure for women’s reproductive health). They had already exhausted significant resources on non-comparative clinical studies that were nearing or at completion, but did not have economic evidence to support their technology or make comparisons to competing procedures.

We developed a creative, cost-effective solution to generate as much comparative data as possible. We designed three distinct study efforts, including: (1) collecting billing data from the pivotal study on the client’s procedure; (2) designing a retrospective case-match study to obtain billing data and clinical data from patients experiencing competing procedures at the pivotal study sites; and (3) conducting an administrative claims database analysis to obtain longer-term payer-perspective data on competing procedures. For the second study, we recruited and onboarded multiple sites from the client’s prior clinical trial.

The client was able to clearly demonstrate their value story without investing in additional, large-scale clinical studies. Two peer-reviewed publications have been produced as a result of these studies (see Brooks et al. 2020 and Brooks et al. 2019), with more under development – one of which (Brooks et al. 2020) has attracted 1206 views in only 13 weeks since published. The positive results of TTi’s efforts have attracted new potential investors for the client.