对医疗器械上市后评估的真实世界证据(RWE)进行系统的文献综述。

IF 3 3区 医学 Q2 HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES
Stefania Manetti, Elisa Guidotti, Federico Vola, Milena Vainieri
{"title":"对医疗器械上市后评估的真实世界证据(RWE)进行系统的文献综述。","authors":"Stefania Manetti, Elisa Guidotti, Federico Vola, Milena Vainieri","doi":"10.1017/S1744133124000148","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The increasing use of real-world evidence (RWE) and real-world data (RWD) to assess post-market medical devices (MDs) might satisfy the urgent need for data sharing and traceability. This study sought to (i) get an overview of current practice in post-market assessments of MDs reporting on RWE/RWD; (ii) draw policy recommendations for governments and health organisations and identify a research agenda for scholars.A systematic review was undertaken until February 2024 following the PRISMA guidelines. Original peer-reviewed articles in English and incorporating RWE/RWD into any sort of post-market assessment strategy for an MD were included and their reference lists manually checked. A narrative synthesis was employed to describe evidence retrieved.Totally, 145 research articles were identified. Administrative databases were mostly utilised; clinical and/or economic evidence gathered in a short/medium time horizon the most frequently reported; other evidence types (e.g., organisational) underreported; patient perspectives rarely incorporated; the innovation complexity of MDs relatively low.To our knowledge, this study is the first in its kind to provide a comprehensive picture of how non-randomised evidence has been used when assessing MDs working in real-life conditions. The implications of this review might help health policy scholars in addressing the avenues for research in RWE for MDs and policy-makers to better understand the risks and benefits of medium and long-term use of MDs alongside clinical practice and make more informed decisions about adoption and use.</p>","PeriodicalId":46836,"journal":{"name":"Health Economics Policy and Law","volume":" ","pages":"1-33"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A systematic literature review of real-world evidence (RWE) on post-market assessment of medical devices.\",\"authors\":\"Stefania Manetti, Elisa Guidotti, Federico Vola, Milena Vainieri\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/S1744133124000148\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>The increasing use of real-world evidence (RWE) and real-world data (RWD) to assess post-market medical devices (MDs) might satisfy the urgent need for data sharing and traceability. This study sought to (i) get an overview of current practice in post-market assessments of MDs reporting on RWE/RWD; (ii) draw policy recommendations for governments and health organisations and identify a research agenda for scholars.A systematic review was undertaken until February 2024 following the PRISMA guidelines. Original peer-reviewed articles in English and incorporating RWE/RWD into any sort of post-market assessment strategy for an MD were included and their reference lists manually checked. A narrative synthesis was employed to describe evidence retrieved.Totally, 145 research articles were identified. Administrative databases were mostly utilised; clinical and/or economic evidence gathered in a short/medium time horizon the most frequently reported; other evidence types (e.g., organisational) underreported; patient perspectives rarely incorporated; the innovation complexity of MDs relatively low.To our knowledge, this study is the first in its kind to provide a comprehensive picture of how non-randomised evidence has been used when assessing MDs working in real-life conditions. The implications of this review might help health policy scholars in addressing the avenues for research in RWE for MDs and policy-makers to better understand the risks and benefits of medium and long-term use of MDs alongside clinical practice and make more informed decisions about adoption and use.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":46836,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Health Economics Policy and Law\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"1-33\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Health Economics Policy and Law\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/S1744133124000148\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health Economics Policy and Law","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S1744133124000148","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

越来越多地使用真实世界证据(RWE)和真实世界数据(RWD)来评估上市后医疗器械(MDs),可能会满足数据共享和可追溯性的迫切需求。本研究旨在(i)对报告RWE/RWD的MDs上市后评估的现行做法进行概述;(ii)为政府和卫生组织提出政策建议,并为学者确定研究议程。在2024年2月之前,按照PRISMA指南进行了系统审查。包括英文同行评审的原创文章,并将RWE/RWD纳入任何一种MD上市后评估策略,并手动检查其参考文献列表。采用叙事综合法描述检索到的证据。共鉴定出145篇研究论文。大多利用了行政数据库;在短期/中期收集的临床和/或经济证据是最常报告的;其他证据类型(如组织)少报;病人的观点很少被纳入;MDs的创新复杂性相对较低。据我们所知,这项研究是同类研究中第一次提供了在评估现实生活条件下工作的医学博士时如何使用非随机证据的全面图景。本综述的意义可能有助于卫生政策学者为医学博士和政策制定者解决RWE研究的途径,以更好地了解中期和长期使用医学博士的风险和益处以及临床实践,并在采用和使用方面做出更明智的决定。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
A systematic literature review of real-world evidence (RWE) on post-market assessment of medical devices.

The increasing use of real-world evidence (RWE) and real-world data (RWD) to assess post-market medical devices (MDs) might satisfy the urgent need for data sharing and traceability. This study sought to (i) get an overview of current practice in post-market assessments of MDs reporting on RWE/RWD; (ii) draw policy recommendations for governments and health organisations and identify a research agenda for scholars.A systematic review was undertaken until February 2024 following the PRISMA guidelines. Original peer-reviewed articles in English and incorporating RWE/RWD into any sort of post-market assessment strategy for an MD were included and their reference lists manually checked. A narrative synthesis was employed to describe evidence retrieved.Totally, 145 research articles were identified. Administrative databases were mostly utilised; clinical and/or economic evidence gathered in a short/medium time horizon the most frequently reported; other evidence types (e.g., organisational) underreported; patient perspectives rarely incorporated; the innovation complexity of MDs relatively low.To our knowledge, this study is the first in its kind to provide a comprehensive picture of how non-randomised evidence has been used when assessing MDs working in real-life conditions. The implications of this review might help health policy scholars in addressing the avenues for research in RWE for MDs and policy-makers to better understand the risks and benefits of medium and long-term use of MDs alongside clinical practice and make more informed decisions about adoption and use.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Health Economics Policy and Law
Health Economics Policy and Law HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES-
CiteScore
5.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
55
期刊介绍: International trends highlight the confluence of economics, politics and legal considerations in the health policy process. Health Economics, Policy and Law serves as a forum for scholarship on health policy issues from these perspectives, and is of use to academics, policy makers and health care managers and professionals. HEPL is international in scope, publishes both theoretical and applied work, and contains articles on all aspects of health policy. Considerable emphasis is placed on rigorous conceptual development and analysis, and on the presentation of empirical evidence that is relevant to the policy process.
×
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