Assessment of the quality of mini-HTA

Kidholm, Kristian; Ehlers, Lars Holger; Korsbek, Lisa; Kjærby, Rolf; Beck, M. Munch

doi:10.1017/s0266462309090060

Cited by 40 publications

(40 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This diversity makes evaluating recommendations from rapid reviews challenging as it is unclear what effect the potential biases introduced into the review process might have on the results [65,66]. Additionally, Gannon et al [34] noted that because of the shortened timelines, rapid reviews may be prone to bias.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Methods for Developing Evidence Reviews in Short Periods of Time: A Scoping Review

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IntroductionRapid reviews (RR), using abbreviated systematic review (SR) methods, are becoming more popular among decision-makers. This World Health Organization commissioned study sought to summarize RR methods, identify differences, and highlight potential biases between RR and SR.MethodsReview of RR methods (Key Question 1 [KQ1]), meta-epidemiologic studies comparing reliability/ validity of RR and SR methods (KQ2), and their potential associated biases (KQ3). We searched Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, grey literature, and checked reference lists, used personal contacts, and crowdsourcing (e.g. email listservs). Selection and data extraction was conducted by one reviewer (KQ1) or two reviewers independently (KQ2-3).ResultsAcross all KQs, we identified 42,743 citations through the literature searches. KQ1: RR methods from 29 organizations were reviewed. There was no consensus on which aspects of the SR process to abbreviate. KQ2: Studies comparing the conclusions of RR and SR (n = 9) found them to be generally similar. Where major differences were identified, it was attributed to the inclusion of evidence from different sources (e.g. searching different databases or including different study designs). KQ3: Potential biases introduced into the review process were well-identified although not necessarily supported by empirical evidence, and focused mainly on selective outcome reporting and publication biases.ConclusionRR approaches are context and organization specific. Existing comparative evidence has found similar conclusions derived from RR and SR, but there is a lack of evidence comparing the potential of bias in both evidence synthesis approaches. Further research and decision aids are needed to help decision makers and reviewers balance the benefits of providing timely evidence with the potential for biased findings.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Methods for Developing Evidence Reviews in Short Periods of Time: A Scoping Review

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Regarding the use of mini-HTA reports in assessing investment decisions at hospital level, Kidholm et al (13) suggested that the data provided by such reports might sometimes be deemed insufficient, especially when information about the selection and interpretation of the clinical literature is missing. If credible advice were to be used in the acquisition of new HTs, we would agree it is necessary to guarantee the quality of mini-HTAs reports.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Development and Test of a Decision Support Tool for Hospital Health Technology Assessment

Sampietro-Colom¹,

Morilla-Bachs

Gutiérrez-Moreno

et al. 2012

Int J Technol Assess Health Care

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: To develop and test a decision-support tool for prioritizing new competing Health Technologies (HTs) after their assessment using the mini-HTA approach. Methods: A two layer value/risk tool was developed based on the mini-HTA. The first layer included 12 mini-HTA variables classified in two dimensions, namely value (safety, clinical benefit, patient impact, cost-effectiveness, quality of the evidence, innovativeness) and risk (staff, space and process of care impacts, incremental costs, net cost, investment effort). Weights given to these variables were obtained from a survey among decision-makers (at National/Regional level and hospital settings). A second layer included results from mini-HTA (scored as higher, equal or lower), which compares the performance of the new HT (in terms of the abovementioned 12 variables) with the available comparator. An algorithm combining the first (weights) and second (scores) layers was developed to obtain an overall score for each HT, which was then plotted in a value/risk matrix. The tool was tested using results from the mini-HTAs for three new HTs (Surgical Robot, Platelet Rich Plasma, Deep Brain Stimulation). Results: No significant differences among decision-makers were observed as regards the weights given to the 12 variables, therefore, the median aggregate weights from decision-makers were introduced in the first layer. The dot plot resulting from the mini-HTA presented good power to visually discriminate between the assessed HTs. Conclusion: The decision-support tool developed here makes possible a robust and straightforward comparison of different competing HTs. This facilitates hospital decision-makers deliberations on the prioritization of competing investments under fixed budgets.

show abstract

“…either more "policy-making" oriented [3] or more locally based, such as Hospital Based HTA or mini HTA from Denmark, although the latter shows some limitations [4], used when the evaluation considers a very localized situation.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The integrated OR Efficiency and effectiveness evaluation after two years use, a pilot study

Nocco

Torchio²

2010

Int J CARS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Results show that there is a deep appreciation of the system which proved to be efficient (reducing surgery time and enhancing surgical quality) and effective. This is a pilot study based on few collected data, but the questionnaire could be handed to many hospitals where integrated ORs are present, in order to achieve a significant degree of assessment and find common topics to be considered fundamental especially in the evaluating phase.

show abstract

Assessment of the quality of mini-HTA

Abstract: The results show that the quality of the information in many cases is insufficient. There is a strong need for quality assurance of mini-HTAs to improve the accuracy of the information, however, without harming the timeliness and the limited use of resources in producing the reports.

Cited by 40 publications

References 10 publications

Methods for Developing Evidence Reviews in Short Periods of Time: A Scoping Review

Methods for Developing Evidence Reviews in Short Periods of Time: A Scoping Review

Development and Test of a Decision Support Tool for Hospital Health Technology Assessment

The integrated OR Efficiency and effectiveness evaluation after two years use, a pilot study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About