{"title":"A systematic review of health economic evaluation quality assessment instruments for medical devices.","authors":"Ilke Akpinar, Ali Unsal, Mike Paulden, Jeff Round","doi":"10.1017/S0266462325000212","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Health economic evaluations are important for healthcare resource allocation. Reviews of health economic evaluations for medical devices have highlighted concerns about the quality of these studies. The complexity of medical devices, including learning curve effects, organizational impact, dynamic pricing, low evidence, and incremental innovation presents unique challenges compared with pharmaceuticals. To support developing a methodological quality assessment instrument for medical device economic evaluations, we conducted a systematic review to identify and evaluate existing economic evaluation quality assessment instruments for suitability in medical device evaluations.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A comprehensive search of databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, EconLit, CINAHL, and Web of Science) and grey literature was conducted. Two reviewers screened titles and abstracts. Full-text, peer-reviewed primary studies introducing original instruments were included. Only methodological quality assessment instruments were considered for data extraction. Each item was assessed for its suitability in evaluating medical device economic evaluations and inclusion of medical device-specific features.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The search identified 4203 citations and 77 grey literature sources. Fifteen results underwent full-text assessment, with five relevant instruments identified. A previous systematic review identified 10 additional instruments, which we also considered. Of these 25 articles, 13 were included in the review. These instruments lack specificity for medical devices, particularly in addressing features like learning curve effects, organizational impact, and incremental innovation. Instruments should include items specific to these unique characteristics.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Existing instruments contain general items related to health economic evaluation studies, highlighting the need for an instrument specifically tailored to evaluate the methodological quality of medical device economic evaluation studies.</p>","PeriodicalId":14467,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care","volume":"41 1","pages":"e40"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12257040/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S0266462325000212","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Objectives: Health economic evaluations are important for healthcare resource allocation. Reviews of health economic evaluations for medical devices have highlighted concerns about the quality of these studies. The complexity of medical devices, including learning curve effects, organizational impact, dynamic pricing, low evidence, and incremental innovation presents unique challenges compared with pharmaceuticals. To support developing a methodological quality assessment instrument for medical device economic evaluations, we conducted a systematic review to identify and evaluate existing economic evaluation quality assessment instruments for suitability in medical device evaluations.
Methods: A comprehensive search of databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, EconLit, CINAHL, and Web of Science) and grey literature was conducted. Two reviewers screened titles and abstracts. Full-text, peer-reviewed primary studies introducing original instruments were included. Only methodological quality assessment instruments were considered for data extraction. Each item was assessed for its suitability in evaluating medical device economic evaluations and inclusion of medical device-specific features.
Results: The search identified 4203 citations and 77 grey literature sources. Fifteen results underwent full-text assessment, with five relevant instruments identified. A previous systematic review identified 10 additional instruments, which we also considered. Of these 25 articles, 13 were included in the review. These instruments lack specificity for medical devices, particularly in addressing features like learning curve effects, organizational impact, and incremental innovation. Instruments should include items specific to these unique characteristics.
Conclusions: Existing instruments contain general items related to health economic evaluation studies, highlighting the need for an instrument specifically tailored to evaluate the methodological quality of medical device economic evaluation studies.
目的:卫生经济评价对卫生资源配置具有重要意义。对医疗器械卫生经济评价的回顾突出了对这些研究质量的关注。与药品相比,医疗器械的复杂性(包括学习曲线效应、组织影响、动态定价、低证据和渐进式创新)带来了独特的挑战。为了支持开发一种用于医疗器械经济评价的方法学质量评价工具,我们进行了一项系统综述,以识别和评价现有的经济评价质量评价工具在医疗器械评价中的适用性。方法:综合检索MEDLINE、EMBASE、EconLit、CINAHL、Web of Science等数据库和灰色文献。两位审稿人筛选了题目和摘要。包括介绍原始仪器的全文、同行评议的初级研究。数据提取只考虑了方法学质量评估工具。评估了每个项目在评估医疗器械经济评估和纳入医疗器械特定特征方面的适用性。结果:检索到引用4203条,灰色文献77篇。15个结果进行了全文评估,确定了5个相关工具。之前的系统综述确定了10个额外的工具,我们也考虑了这些工具。在这25篇文章中,13篇被纳入综述。这些工具缺乏医疗器械的特异性,特别是在处理学习曲线效应、组织影响和增量创新等特征方面。工具应包括针对这些独特特征的具体项目。结论:现有工具包含与卫生经济评价研究相关的一般项目,突出表明需要专门定制一种工具来评估医疗器械经济评价研究的方法学质量。
期刊介绍:
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care serves as a forum for the wide range of health policy makers and professionals interested in the economic, social, ethical, medical and public health implications of health technology. It covers the development, evaluation, diffusion and use of health technology, as well as its impact on the organization and management of health care systems and public health. In addition to general essays and research reports, regular columns on technology assessment reports and thematic sections are published.