Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T17:28:34.191Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

When the decision is what to decide: Using evidence inventory reports to focus health technology assessments

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 March 2011

Matthew D. Mitchell ,
Kendal Williams ,
Gretchen Kuntz  and
Craig A. Umscheid
Matthew D. Mitchell
Affiliation:
University of Pennsylvania Health System
Kendal Williams
Affiliation:
University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine and University of Pennsylvania Health System
Gretchen Kuntz
Affiliation:
University of Pennsylvania
Craig A. Umscheid
Affiliation:
University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine and University of Pennsylvania Health System
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objectives: Health systems frequently make decisions regarding acquisition and use of new technologies. It is desirable to base these decisions on clinical evidence, but often these technologies are used for multiple indications and evidence of effectiveness for one indication does not prove effectiveness for all. Here, we describe two examples of evidence inventory reports that were performed for the purposes of identifying how much and what type of published clinical evidence was available for a given technology, and the contexts in which those technologies were studied.

Methods: The evidence inventory reports included literature searches for systematic reviews and health technology assessment (HTA) reports, and systematic searches of the primary literature intended to count and categorize published clinical studies. The reports did not include analysis of the primary literature.

Results: The inventory reports were completed in 3 to 4 days each and were approximately ten pages in length, including references. Reports included tables listing the number of reported studies by specific indication for use, and whether or not there were randomized trials. Reports also summarized findings of existing systematic reviews and HTA reports, when available. Committees used the inventory reports to decide for which indications they wanted a full HTA report.

Conclusions: Evidence inventory reports are a form of rapid HTA that can give decision makers a timely understanding of the available evidence upon which they can base a decision. They can help HTA providers focus subsequent reports on topics that will have the most influence on healthcare decision making.

Keywords

HTARapidBibliographyQuantity of evidence
Type
METHODS
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 27 , Issue 2 , April 2011 , pp. 127 - 132
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1. Camberlin, C, Senn, A, Leys, M, De Laet, C. Robot-assisted surgery: Health technology assessment. Report No. 104C. Brussels: Belgian Federal Health Care Knowledge Centre (KCE); 2009.Google Scholar
2. Douw, K, Vondeling, H. Selection of new health technologies for assessment aimed at informing decision making: A survey among horizon scanning systems. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2006;22:177–183.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3. Gurusamy, KS, Samraj, K, Fusai, G, Davidson, BR. Robot assistant for laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2009;(1):006578.Google Scholar
4. Hailey, D. A preliminary survey on the influence of rapid health technology assessments. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2009;25:415–418.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5. International Working Group for HTA Advancement, Neumann, PJ, Drummond, MF, Jonsson, B, et al. Are key principles for improved health technology assessment supported and used by health technology assessment organizations? Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2010;26:71–78.Google ScholarPubMed
6. Mitchell, MD. Efficacy studies of low-field-strength MR imaging: Feast or famine. Radiology. 1996;200:284–285.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7. Mitchell, M, Williams, K. Annotated search: Clinical trials of dexmedetomidine in surgery and other invasive procedures. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Health System Center for Evidence-based Practice; 2009.Google Scholar
8. Mitchell, M, Williams, K. Systematic reviews of robotic-assisted surgery. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Health System Center for Evidence-based Practice; 2009.Google Scholar
9. O'Malley, SP, Jordan, E. Horizon scanning of new and emerging medical technology in Australia: Its relevance to Medical Services Advisory Committee health technology assessments and public funding. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2009;25:374-382.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10. Sackett, DL. Evidence-based medicine: How to practice and teach EBM. 2nd ed. Edinburgh/New York: Churchill Livingstone; 2000.Google Scholar
11. Wild, C, Simpson, S, Douw, K, Geiger-Gritsch, S, Mathis, S, Langer, T. Information service on new and emerging health technologies: Identification and prioritization processes for a European Union-wide newsletter. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2009;25 (Suppl S2):48–55.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed