Assessment of the added value of the Twente Photoacoustic Mammoscope in breast cancer diagnosis

Hilgerink, Marjolein P.; Hummel, J. Marjan; Manohar, Srirang; Vaartjes, Simon R.; IJzerman, Maarten J.

doi:10.2147/mder.s20169

Cited by 25 publications

(36 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…If used in a group decision approach, the AHP can engage various stakeholders, including patients, care providers, researchers, and/or payers to value the multiple outcomes of healthcare technologies [8,12]. Their judgments on the value of alternative technology can be administered through (online) questionnaires, electronic voting in a faceto-face group setting, or online voting in a dispersed group setting.…”

Section: Administration Of Group Judgmentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It can support individual decision makers, as well as groups of decision makers [3]. The AHP aims to support shared decision making [4,5], decisions on clinical guidelines [6,7], decisions on the development of new technology [8,9], organizational decisions [10,11], and decisions on health policy [12][13][14], such as regulatory decisions, reimbursement decisions, or allocation of public research funding.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Group Decision Making with the Analytic Hierarchy Process in Benefit-Risk Assessment: A Tutorial

Hummel

Bridges

IJzerman

2014

Patient

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The analytic hierarchy process (AHP) has been increasingly applied as a technique for multi-criteria decision analysis in healthcare. The AHP can aid decision makers in selecting the most valuable technology for patients, while taking into account multiple, and even conflicting, decision criteria. This tutorial illustrates the procedural steps of the AHP in supporting group decision making about new healthcare technology, including (1) identifying the decision goal, decision criteria, and alternative healthcare technologies to compare, (2) structuring the decision criteria, (3) judging the value of the alternative technologies on each decision criterion, (4) judging the importance of the decision criteria, (5) calculating group judgments, (6) analyzing the inconsistency in judgments, (7) calculating the overall value of the technologies, and (8) conducting sensitivity analyses. The AHP is illustrated via a hypothetical example, adapted from an empirical AHP analysis on the benefits and risks of tissue regeneration to repair small cartilage lesions in the knee. Key Points for Decision MakersIn a step-by-step approach, it is illustrated how the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) can support groups making healthcare decisions.The AHP facilitates the decision makers in discussing and valuing the multiple outcomes of alternative healthcare technologies.The AHP can prioritize the healthcare technology to help decision makers in selecting the most valuable technology for patients.

show abstract

Section: Administration Of Group Judgmentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Group Decision Making with the Analytic Hierarchy Process in Benefit-Risk Assessment: A Tutorial

Hummel

Bridges

IJzerman

2014

Patient

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…*2 Baltussen et al, 2007;Defechereux et al, 2012;Duthie et al, 1999;Golan & Hansen, 2010;Venhorst et al, 2014;Youngkong et al, 2009. *3 Dionne et al, 2015Dolan, 2010;Duthie et al, 1999;Le Gales & Moatti, 1990;Gibson et al, 2006;Gurtner, 2014;Hilgerink et al, 2011;Johnson et al, 2009;Lasry et al, 2011;Mullen, 2004;Ritrovato et al, 2015;Tannahill, 2008;Wilson et al, 2006;Wilson et al, 2007;Youngkong et al, 2012a;Youngkong et al, 2012b. *4 de Greef-van der Sandt et al, 2016;Vuorenkoski et al, 2008;Youngkong et al, 2009. *5 Diaby & Goeree , 2014Goetghebeur et al, 2008;Goetghebeur et al, 2010;Goetghebeur et al, 2012;Golan & Hansen, 2010;Hailey, 2009;Menon et al, 2010;Miot et al, 2012;Mullen, 2004;Tony et al, 2011;University of York, 2002;Wilson et al, 2007. *6 Golan & Hansen, 2010;Johnson et al, 2009;Martin et al, 2001;Meagher, 2010;Noorani et al, 2007;Simoens, 2014;V...…”

Section: (("Decision Making"[mesh] Not Shar*[tiab]) or ("Decision Supunclassified

“…*10 Hailey, 2009Johnson et al, 2009;Martin et al, 2001. *11 Adunlin et al, 2015;Andreae et al, 2009;de Greef-van der Sandt et al, 2016;Diaby & Goeree, 2014;Dionne et al, 2009;Goetghebeur et al, 2008;Goetghebeur et al, 2010;Goetghebeur et al, 2012;Golan & Hansen, 2010;Gurtner, 2014;Hailey, 2009;Hilgerink et al, 2011;Johnson et al, 2009;Miot et al, 2012;Ritrovato et al, 2015;Sloane et al, 2003;Tannahill, 2008;Tony et al, 2011;Tromp & Baltussen, 2012;Venhorst et al, 2014. *12 Duthie et al, 1999;Youngkong et al, 2009. *13 Martin et al, 2001Mühlbacher & Kaczynski, 2015.…”

Section: (("Decision Making"[mesh] Not Shar*[tiab]) or ("Decision Supunclassified

See 1 more Smart Citation

Análise de Decisão Multicritérios (MCDA): uma revisão rápida sobre os critérios utilizados na Avaliação de Tecnologias em Saúde

Souza¹,

Santos²,

Cintra³

2018

JBES

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

RESUMOObjetivo: Identificar os vários critérios utilizados por agências e órgãos governamentais internacionais na Avaliação de Tecnologias em Saúde (ATS). Métodos: Foi realizada uma revisão rápida com busca estruturada na base de dados Medline (via PubMed) e Lilacs complementada por busca na literatura cinzenta, sem restrição de idioma. Incluíram-se estudos da área de saúde que descreviam critérios e que utilizaram o método MCDA (Análise de Decisão Multicritérios) na ATS. Excluíram-se estudos que avaliaram apenas uma tecnologia específica ou contexto restrito. Os critérios foram agregados e sumarizados conforme opinião de especialistas em ATS. Resultados: Foram identificadas 3.746 publicações, sendo 27 selecionadas. Os critérios extraídos foram categorizados e seus respectivos atributos foram listados. Dez categorias foram apresentadas: benefício e risco da intervenção (4 critérios); impacto da doença (4 critérios); impacto econômico (5 critérios); contexto terapêutico da intervenção (4 critérios); qualidade e incerteza da evidência (4 critérios); implementação da intervenção (5 critérios); benefícios para a sociedade (5 critérios); benefícios para o sistema de saúde público (5 critérios); benefícios para a indústria (1 critério); e outros (3 critérios). Os atributos mais prevalentes foram: custo-efetividade; segurança e tolerabilidade; impacto orçamentário para o sistema/plano de saúde; gravidade da doença; equidade; efetividade; custo. Conclusões: Os órgãos decisores utilizam grande variedade de critérios para o MCDA, refletindo visões e valores diferentes entre as culturas. O estudo fornece informação para discussão no contexto brasileiro de uma lista mais ampla e possível padronização de critérios a serem utilizados na tomada de decisão pública ou privada sobre a incorporação de novas tecnologias. ABSTRACTObjective: To identify the various criteria used by international government agencies and bodies in Health Technology Assessment (HTA). Methods: A rapid review was conducted with a structured search in the Medline database (via PubMed) and Lilacs supplemented by a search in the gray literature, without a restriction of language. Inclusion criteria were studies in health context, describing the criteria and using the MCDA (Multicriteria Decision Analysis) method in HTA. We excluded studies that assessed only one specific technology or restricted context. The criteria were aggregated and summarized according to the opinion of HTA experts. Results: A total of 3,746 publications were identified, of which 27 were selected. The extracted criteria were categorized, and their respective

show abstract

Information Retrieval from Electronic Health Records

Al-Qahtani

Katsigiannis

Ramzan

2020

Engineering and Technology for Healthcare

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This chapter focuses on three main topics. The first aims to provide an explanation of the principles of health technology assessment (HTA) and its familiar role in determining coverage of healthcare provision. Second, we discuss the growing contribution of HTA in the development and translation of medical devices introducing what we term "development-focused HTA"(DF-HTA). We set out the role of DF-HTA in identifying needs, assessing the potential of technologies in development, aiding design, and tailoring evidence generation activities. Finally, we outline the challenges of development and assessment presented by medical devices distinguishing large capital items, point of care devices, diagnostics, implantables, and digital devices. Each category of device has its own set of challenges for developers and HTA analysts alike. Challenges include a complex licensing and regulation environment, short lifespan and incremental improvement, difficulties in generating clinical evidence, the importance of contextual factors (e.g., how the device will be used and by whom), patient and clinician acceptance, and the indirect health benefit from diagnostic devices.

show abstract

Assessment of the added value of the Twente Photoacoustic Mammoscope in breast cancer diagnosis

Cited by 25 publications

References 16 publications

Group Decision Making with the Analytic Hierarchy Process in Benefit-Risk Assessment: A Tutorial

Group Decision Making with the Analytic Hierarchy Process in Benefit-Risk Assessment: A Tutorial

Análise de Decisão Multicritérios (MCDA): uma revisão rápida sobre os critérios utilizados na Avaliação de Tecnologias em Saúde

Information Retrieval from Electronic Health Records

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About