Endometrial Ablation Survey 2002

Developments

Financings

Reports

Startups

Blog

Podcast

Cardiology

Surgery

Methodology

Order Report

Endometrial Ablation
Clinical Practice Survey
Preferences, Perceptions, and Predictions

May, September, December 2002

Report #S131, #S132, #S133

Report #S131: · 80 pages · 39 Exhibits · Pub. Date May 2002

Report #S132: · 96 pages · 51 Exhibits · Pub. Date August 2002

Report #S133: · 100 pages · 60 Exhibits · Pub. Date December 2002

These reports captures the status of gynecologists' perspectives regarding current and emerging endometrial ablation technologies and its use for the management of dysfunctional uterine bleeding (DUB). Produced in conjunction with OBGYN.net, the report series is based on three separate surveys of 100 gynecologists each (total target of 300 gynecologists) regarding the range of alternative interventions for management of DUB. The reports characterize the clinicians' perspectives on these alternatives, their potential purchase for their practices, the requirements influencing their purchasing decision, product awareness and other key considerations for the endometrial ablation product manufacturer. Extensive analysis has been done to elucidate strong perspectives existing or emerging in this group of clinicians. The 3-report series reflects market introduction and acceptance of technologies in the evolving endometrial ablation market in 2002.

Table of Contents (varies by report, but follows this outline)

Executive Summary

Respondent Profile

Key findings

Section 1: Introduction

1.1 Respondent Profile

1.1.1 Geographic Breakdown of Respondents

Section 2: Current Management of DUB

2.1       DUB Caseload Per Month

2.2       Caseload, Career, in Surgical Management of DUB

2.2.1          Preferred surgical intervention

2.2.2          Medications Prescribed

2.2.3          Leading physicians’ work followed by respondent

Section 3: Preferences and Adoption of Generation II Devices

3.1       Preferred Gen II Devices

3.2       Gen II Devices Excluded

3.3       Office/Clinic/OR Preferred Location for Use

3.4       Price Considerations

3.4.1          Complete System

3.4.2          Cost of Disposable

3.5       Purchase Criteria Ranking

3.6       Potential Gen II purchase

3.6.1          Likelihood of Purchase Within 24 Months

3.6.2          Product Likely to Be Purchased

3.7       Factors Behind Purchase Decision

3.8       Expected Impact of Gen II Devices on Practice

3.9       Appear on a newscast

3.10     Marketing Gen II Use for Elimination of Normal Menses

Section 4: Product awareness

4.1       Test to Match Significant Feature with Product Name

4.2       Requests for literature from specific manufacturers

4.3       Comparison of Favorite Choice and Purchase Choices

Section 5: APPENDIX I: Cross-Tabulation of Selected Responses by Surgical Preference

Section 6: APPENDIX II: ENDOMETRIAL ABLATION SURVEY

Exhibit ES-1: Respondents by State

Exhibit ES-2: Preferred Method of Surgical Intervention for Treatment of DUB

Exhibit 1: Survey Screening Criteria

Exhibit 2: Respondents by State

Exhibit 3: DUB Cases per Month

Exhibit 4: Number of DUB Cases Per Month, By Career Volume of DUB Surgeries

Exhibit 5: Number of Career Surgeries Performed in Treatment of DUB

Exhibit 6: Preferred Method of Surgical Intervention

Exhibit 7: Meds prescribed for DUB patients

Exhibit 8: Top Ten Respected Physicians Identified, Overall

Exhibit 9: Favorite Generation II Product

Exhibit 10: Individual Responses on Why Laser is Excluded

Exhibit 11: Which Generation II Product Would You Not Consider

Exhibit 12: What is Preferred Location for Surgery

Exhibit 13: Price Ceiling for Private Purchase

Exhibit 14: Cost of Disposable

Exhibit 15: Two-Factor Purchase Criteria Rankings

Exhibit 16: Single-Factor Purchase Criteria Rankings

Exhibit 17: Likelihood of Gen II Purchase Within 24 Months

Exhibit 18: Likelihood of Purchase, By Career DUB Surgery Volume

Exhibit 19: Likelihood of Purchase, by Preferred Surgical Intervention

Exhibit 20: Percent of Respondents Likely to Purchase, By Product

Exhibit 21: Factors for Purchase Decision

Exhibit 22: Marketing Gen II for Elimination of Normal Menses

Exhibit 23: Correctly Matching Product Name and Feature

Exhibit 24: Literature Request by Product

Exhibit 25: Choice for Favorite Gen II by Likely Purchase

Exhibit 26: Monthly DUB Caseload, by Surgical Preference

Exhibit 27: Career DUB Surgeries, by Surgical Preference

Exhibit 28: Preferred Gen II Device, by Surgical Preference

Exhibit 29: Gen II Devices Respondent Won’t Consider, by Surgical Preference

Exhibit 30: Product Awareness by Surgical Preference, MEA

Exhibit 31: Product Awareness by Surgical Preference, Her Option

Exhibit 32: Product Awareness by Surgical Preference, HTA

Exhibit 33: Product Awareness by Surgical Preference, Gynelase

Exhibit 34: Product Awareness by Surgical Preference, NovaSure

Exhibit 35: Product Awareness by Surgical Preference, ThermaChoice

Exhibit 36: Expected Expansion of Practice Due to Gen II, by Surgical Preference

Exhibit 37: Marketing Gen II to Healthy Women, by Surgical Preference

Endometrial Ablation Clinical Practice Survey Report series

Prices:

Print or PDF Print and PDF

Individual report (S131, S132 or S133) $1,450 $1,750

3-Report series (S131-S133) $3,950 $4,150

Order

Methodology.
MedMarket Diligence Reports are produced through primary and secondary research. A survey of 101 practicing U.S. gynecologists was implemented via OBGYN.net. Respondents were screened to eliminate industry association (e.g., scientific advisory board participation or other). Sample was based on physicians voluntarily participating, with the incentive to be entered in a drawing for a handheld computer. The survey data was analyzed and interpreted to characterize the distribution of responses, and cross-tabulated to reveal distinct cohorts with meaningful responses. Sample is not strictly representative given voluntary participation, and results must be viewed within the context of the sample. Secondary data is used to corroborate and support assessments and projections. All MedMarket Diligence reports are written and researched by industry insiders, whose familiarity with the companies, industry dynamics and other marketplace specifics facilitate the research process and ensure high quality and thorough reports.

Contact: Patrick Driscoll, (949) 859-3401.


Follow us on Twitter Follow medmarket

MedMarket Diligence Reports

White Paper
High Growth
Medical Technologies

October 2009

Medtech Startups
Online database of recent medtech startups