Criteria to define innovation in the field of medical devices: a Delphi approach.

GMS health innovation and technologies Pub Date : 2024-02-28 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.3205/hta000138
Daniela D'Angela, Antonio Migliore, Iñaki Gutiérrez-Ibarluzea, Barbara Polistena, Federico Spandonaro
{"title":"Criteria to define innovation in the field of medical devices: a Delphi approach.","authors":"Daniela D'Angela, Antonio Migliore, Iñaki Gutiérrez-Ibarluzea, Barbara Polistena, Federico Spandonaro","doi":"10.3205/hta000138","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Defining innovation in the field of medical devices can be extremely challenging due to the peculiarity of the products within this class. Short life-cycle, incrementality, learning curve effect, impact of the organizational setting, uncertainty of effect and level of evidence are only some of these aspects. A clear set of criteria to define innovation would be of paramount relevance in this field. Twelve criteria to define innovation were proposed to a multistakeholder panel within a consensus process. A Delphi method on two rounds was used to reach consensus. In total, 53 of the 93 (47%) invited panelists responded to the first round of the survey. Among them, 51 (96%) completed also the second round. At the first round, consensus was reached for four of the 12 proposed criteria. Three of the remaining eight criteria reached consensus at the second round. It was not possible to reach consensus for the remaining five criteria. The criteria that collected the highest scores (close to 100%) were from the clinical impact domain, namely the ability of the technology to offer significant advantages over existing alternatives in terms of improving relevant clinical outcomes, and the ability to address an unmet need defined in terms of unavailability of diagnosis/treatment alternatives. High levels of consensus (about 80%) were registered on criteria belonging to non-clinical domains of analysis and, in particular, the ability of the technology to introduce organizational benefits, and the ability of the technology to bring cost reduction providing the same clinical benefit of current alternatives.</p>","PeriodicalId":92900,"journal":{"name":"GMS health innovation and technologies","volume":"18 ","pages":"Doc01"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10967129/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"GMS health innovation and technologies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3205/hta000138","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Defining innovation in the field of medical devices can be extremely challenging due to the peculiarity of the products within this class. Short life-cycle, incrementality, learning curve effect, impact of the organizational setting, uncertainty of effect and level of evidence are only some of these aspects. A clear set of criteria to define innovation would be of paramount relevance in this field. Twelve criteria to define innovation were proposed to a multistakeholder panel within a consensus process. A Delphi method on two rounds was used to reach consensus. In total, 53 of the 93 (47%) invited panelists responded to the first round of the survey. Among them, 51 (96%) completed also the second round. At the first round, consensus was reached for four of the 12 proposed criteria. Three of the remaining eight criteria reached consensus at the second round. It was not possible to reach consensus for the remaining five criteria. The criteria that collected the highest scores (close to 100%) were from the clinical impact domain, namely the ability of the technology to offer significant advantages over existing alternatives in terms of improving relevant clinical outcomes, and the ability to address an unmet need defined in terms of unavailability of diagnosis/treatment alternatives. High levels of consensus (about 80%) were registered on criteria belonging to non-clinical domains of analysis and, in particular, the ability of the technology to introduce organizational benefits, and the ability of the technology to bring cost reduction providing the same clinical benefit of current alternatives.

界定医疗器械领域创新的标准:德尔菲法。
由于医疗器械产品的特殊性,界定该领域的创新极具挑战性。生命周期短、渐进性、学习曲线效应、组织环境的影响、效果的不确定性和证据水平只是其中的一些方面。在这一领域,一套明确的创新定义标准至关重要。在协商一致的过程中,向多方利益相关者小组提出了界定创新的 12 项标准。为达成共识,采用了两轮德尔菲法。在受邀的 93 位小组成员中,共有 53 位(47%)对第一轮调查做出了回应。其中 51 人(96%)还完成了第二轮调查。在第一轮调查中,12 项拟议标准中有 4 项达成了共识。其余 8 项标准中有 3 项在第二轮达成了共识。其余五项标准未能达成共识。得分最高(接近 100%)的标准来自临床影响领域,即在改善相关临床结果方面,该技术与现有替代技术相比具有显著优势的能力,以及解决未满足需求的能力(定义为无法获得诊断/治疗替代方案)。在属于非临床分析领域的标准方面,尤其是技术带来组织效益的能力,以及技术在提供与现有替代品相同的临床效益的同时降低成本的能力方面,达成了高度共识(约 80%)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信