Selection and Prioritization of Medical Devices for HTA Evaluation: A Systematic Review of Existing Approaches.

IF 3.1 4区 医学 Q1 ECONOMICS
João Félix Pimenta, Ana C L Vieira
{"title":"Selection and Prioritization of Medical Devices for HTA Evaluation: A Systematic Review of Existing Approaches.","authors":"João Félix Pimenta, Ana C L Vieira","doi":"10.1007/s40258-025-00981-w","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Efficient resource allocation in the health technology assessment process of medical devices requires a robust selection and prioritization of medical devices for evaluation. Despite its importance, there is currently no generally accepted approach for such a prioritization task, and a comprehensive review of adaptable approaches is needed.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>Our study aimed to provide a comprehensive review of existing approaches that could be used or adapted to select and prioritize medical devices for health technology assessment (HTA) evaluation.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Searches were conducted in PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and the databases of the International Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment and the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. Following the screening, analyses and comparisons were based on data such as publication year, target jurisdiction, decision context, health technology focus, methods used for value assessment and included attributes, and the social methods used for stakeholder engagement.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>From 1055 identified records, 51 studies were eligible for review. Only 31 records mentioned the value assessment method used and, although there was a wide variety of techniques found in this sample, the majority of them (77%) applied multicriteria decision analysis. A total of 22 studies were specifically focused on HTA prioritization and, within this set, the most frequently used value attributes were Clinical efficacy and/or effectiveness (n = 21, 95%), Impact of the disease (n = 13, 59%), and Ethical, social and legal aspects (n = 11, 50%). Social methods commonly implemented were questionnaires/surveys and the Delphi technique, with 15 and 7 reported applications, respectively.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>A wide variety of methods have been reported to assess value in HTA contexts, and our premise that a generally accepted approach for prioritizing medical devices for HTA is still lacking was confirmed. Despite such heterogeneity, it was noticed that a multicriteria decision analysis is predominantly applied, with both intervention- and disease-related attributes being considered. Underreporting of the approaches used was recurrent, which should be avoided in the future to ensure their transparency and replicability.</p>","PeriodicalId":8065,"journal":{"name":"Applied Health Economics and Health Policy","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Applied Health Economics and Health Policy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40258-025-00981-w","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Efficient resource allocation in the health technology assessment process of medical devices requires a robust selection and prioritization of medical devices for evaluation. Despite its importance, there is currently no generally accepted approach for such a prioritization task, and a comprehensive review of adaptable approaches is needed.

Objective: Our study aimed to provide a comprehensive review of existing approaches that could be used or adapted to select and prioritize medical devices for health technology assessment (HTA) evaluation.

Methods: Searches were conducted in PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and the databases of the International Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment and the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. Following the screening, analyses and comparisons were based on data such as publication year, target jurisdiction, decision context, health technology focus, methods used for value assessment and included attributes, and the social methods used for stakeholder engagement.

Results: From 1055 identified records, 51 studies were eligible for review. Only 31 records mentioned the value assessment method used and, although there was a wide variety of techniques found in this sample, the majority of them (77%) applied multicriteria decision analysis. A total of 22 studies were specifically focused on HTA prioritization and, within this set, the most frequently used value attributes were Clinical efficacy and/or effectiveness (n = 21, 95%), Impact of the disease (n = 13, 59%), and Ethical, social and legal aspects (n = 11, 50%). Social methods commonly implemented were questionnaires/surveys and the Delphi technique, with 15 and 7 reported applications, respectively.

Conclusions: A wide variety of methods have been reported to assess value in HTA contexts, and our premise that a generally accepted approach for prioritizing medical devices for HTA is still lacking was confirmed. Despite such heterogeneity, it was noticed that a multicriteria decision analysis is predominantly applied, with both intervention- and disease-related attributes being considered. Underreporting of the approaches used was recurrent, which should be avoided in the future to ensure their transparency and replicability.

医疗器械的选择和优先级评估:现有方法的系统回顾。
背景:在医疗器械卫生技术评价过程中,有效的资源配置需要对医疗器械进行稳健的选择和优先级评价。尽管它很重要,但目前对于这种确定优先次序的任务还没有普遍接受的办法,因此需要对适应性办法进行全面审查。目的:我们的研究旨在对现有的方法进行全面的回顾,这些方法可以用于或适应选择和优先考虑用于卫生技术评估(HTA)的医疗器械。方法:在PubMed、Web of Science、Scopus以及国际卫生技术评估机构网络和审查与传播中心的数据库中进行检索。筛选之后,根据诸如出版年份、目标辖区、决策背景、卫生技术重点、用于价值评估和包含属性的方法以及用于利益相关者参与的社会方法等数据进行分析和比较。结果:从1055份确定的记录中,有51项研究符合审查条件。只有31条记录提到了所使用的价值评估方法,尽管在该样本中发现了各种各样的技术,但其中大多数(77%)应用了多标准决策分析。共有22项研究专门关注HTA的优先级,在这组研究中,最常用的价值属性是临床疗效和/或有效性(n = 21, 95%)、疾病影响(n = 13, 59%)和伦理、社会和法律方面(n = 11, 50%)。常用的社会方法是问卷调查和德尔菲法,分别有15例和7例报告应用。结论:已经报道了各种各样的方法来评估HTA背景下的价值,我们的前提是仍然缺乏一种普遍接受的优先考虑HTA医疗设备的方法。尽管存在这种异质性,但值得注意的是,主要应用了多标准决策分析,同时考虑了干预和疾病相关的属性。少报所采用的方法是经常发生的,今后应避免这种情况,以确保其透明度和可复制性。
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
Applied Health Economics and Health Policy
Applied Health Economics and Health Policy Economics, Econometrics and Finance-Economics and Econometrics
CiteScore
6.10
自引率
2.80%
发文量
64
期刊介绍: Applied Health Economics and Health Policy provides timely publication of cutting-edge research and expert opinion from this increasingly important field, making it a vital resource for payers, providers and researchers alike. The journal includes high quality economic research and reviews of all aspects of healthcare from various perspectives and countries, designed to communicate the latest applied information in health economics and health policy. While emphasis is placed on information with practical applications, a strong basis of underlying scientific rigor is maintained.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信