Suppr超能文献

优先选择用于评估的新诊断技术的标准。

Prioritisation criteria for the selection of new diagnostic technologies for evaluation.

机构信息

Oxford Centre for Monitoring and Diagnosis, Department of Primary Health Care, University of Oxford, Oxford OX3 7LF, UK.

出版信息

BMC Health Serv Res. 2010 May 5;10:109. doi: 10.1186/1472-6963-10-109.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Currently there is no framework for those involved in the identification, evaluation and prioritisation of new diagnostic technologies. Therefore we aimed to develop prioritisation criteria for the assessment of new diagnostic technologies, by gaining international consensus on not only which criteria should be used, but also their relative importance.

METHODS

A two-round Delphi process was used to generate consensus amongst an international panel of twenty-six experts on priority criteria for diagnostic health technology assessment. Participants represented a range of health care and related professions, including government, industry, health services and academia.

RESULTS

Based on the responses to the first questionnaire 18 criteria were placed into three categories: high, intermediate and moderate priority. For 16 of the 18 criteria, agreement with the categorisation of the criteria into the high, intermediate and moderate categories was high at > or = 70% (10 had agreement > or = 80%). A further questionnaire and panel discussion reduced the criteria to 16 and two categories; seven were classified as high priority and nine intermediate.

CONCLUSIONS

This study proposes an objective structure of prioritisation criteria to use when assessing new diagnostic technologies, based on an expert consensus process. The value of these criteria is that no one single component should be used as the decisive driver for prioritisation of new diagnostic technologies for adoption in healthcare settings. Future studies should be directed at establishing the value of these prioritisation criteria across a range of healthcare settings.

摘要

背景

目前,尚缺乏用于识别、评估和优先考虑新诊断技术的框架。因此,我们旨在通过就应使用哪些标准以及这些标准的相对重要性达成国际共识,为新诊断技术的评估制定优先排序标准。

方法

采用两轮 Delphi 法,就诊断卫生技术评估的优先排序标准,在 26 名国际专家组成的小组中达成共识。参与者代表了一系列医疗保健和相关专业,包括政府、工业、医疗服务和学术界。

结果

根据第一轮调查问卷的回复,18 项标准被归入三个类别:高度优先、中度优先和低度优先。对于 18 项标准中的 16 项,将标准归入高度、中度和低度类别得到的共识度较高,大于等于 70%(有 10 项共识度大于等于 80%)。进一步的问卷和小组讨论将标准减少到 16 项和两个类别;7 项被归类为高度优先,9 项为中度优先。

结论

本研究提出了一种基于专家共识过程的用于评估新诊断技术的客观优先排序标准结构。这些标准的价值在于,不应将任何单一标准作为在医疗保健环境中采用新诊断技术的决定性驱动因素。未来的研究应致力于在一系列医疗保健环境中确定这些优先排序标准的价值。

相似文献

1
Prioritisation criteria for the selection of new diagnostic technologies for evaluation.
BMC Health Serv Res. 2010 May 5;10:109. doi: 10.1186/1472-6963-10-109.
2
An international consensus panel on the potential value of Digital Surgery.
BMJ Open. 2024 Sep 5;14(9):e082875. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2023-082875.
4
A model for HTA priority setting: experience in Lithuania.
Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2013 Oct;29(4):450-5. doi: 10.1017/S0266462313000470.
5
An international consensus study of neuroleptic malignant syndrome diagnostic criteria using the Delphi method.
J Clin Psychiatry. 2011 Sep;72(9):1222-8. doi: 10.4088/JCP.10m06438. Epub 2011 Jun 28.
6
Rapid response in health technology assessment: a Delphi study for a Brazilian guideline.
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2018 Jun 8;18(1):51. doi: 10.1186/s12874-018-0512-z.
7
Consensus criteria for the diagnosis of scabies: A Delphi study of international experts.
PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2018 May 24;12(5):e0006549. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0006549. eCollection 2018 May.

引用本文的文献

2
Organizational aspect in healthcare decision-making: a literature review.
J Mark Access Health Policy. 2020 Aug 31;8(1):1810905. doi: 10.1080/20016689.2020.1810905.
3
Systematic review for the development of a pharmaceutical and medical products prioritization framework.
J Pharm Policy Pract. 2019 Aug 21;12:21. doi: 10.1186/s40545-019-0181-2. eCollection 2019.
4
Scanning the horizon: a systematic literature review of methodologies.
BMJ Open. 2019 May 27;9(5):e026764. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-026764.
5
Diagnostic evidence cooperatives: bridging the valley of death in diagnostics development.
Diagn Progn Res. 2018 Jun 18;2:9. doi: 10.1186/s41512-018-0030-9. eCollection 2018.
6
Common evidence gaps in point-of-care diagnostic test evaluation: a review of horizon scan reports.
BMJ Open. 2017 Sep 1;7(9):e015760. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-015760.
7
Point-of-care testing in UK primary care: a survey to establish clinical needs.
Fam Pract. 2016 Aug;33(4):388-94. doi: 10.1093/fampra/cmw018. Epub 2016 Apr 5.

本文引用的文献

1
Bringing diagnostic technologies to the clinical laboratory: Rigor, regulation, and reality.
Proteomics Clin Appl. 2008;2(10-11):1378-1385. doi: 10.1002/prca.200780170.
2
Evaluating diagnostic tests: Selecting diagnostic tests for evaluation.
BMJ. 2008 Mar 29;336(7646):683. doi: 10.1136/bmj.39525.550764.3A.
3
Emerging health technologies: informing and supporting health policy early.
Health Policy. 2008 Aug;87(2):160-71. doi: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2008.01.002. Epub 2008 Mar 4.
4
Priority setting for health technology assessments: a systematic review of current practical approaches.
Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2007 Summer;23(3):310-5. doi: 10.1017/s026646230707050x.
5
Prioritizing health technologies in a Primary Care Trust.
J Health Serv Res Policy. 2007 Apr;12(2):80-5. doi: 10.1258/135581907780279495.
6
Developing a quality criteria framework for patient decision aids: online international Delphi consensus process.
BMJ. 2006 Aug 26;333(7565):417. doi: 10.1136/bmj.38926.629329.AE. Epub 2006 Aug 14.
7
Comparative accuracy: assessing new tests against existing diagnostic pathways.
BMJ. 2006 May 6;332(7549):1089-92. doi: 10.1136/bmj.332.7549.1089.
8
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 Spring;22(2):177-83. doi: 10.1017/S0266462306050999.
9
Study design for the new millennium: changing how we perform research and practice medicine.
Radiology. 2002 Mar;222(3):593-4. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2223011621.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验