Literature DB >> 29909792

HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT METHODS GUIDELINES FOR MEDICAL DEVICES: HOW CAN WE ADDRESS THE GAPS? THE INTERNATIONAL FEDERATION OF MEDICAL AND BIOLOGICAL ENGINEERING PERSPECTIVE.

Julie Polisena1, Rossana Castaldo2, Oriana Ciani3, Carlo Federici4, Simone Borsci5, Matteo Ritrovato6, Daniel Clark7, Leandro Pecchia8.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: Current health technology assessment (HTA) methods guidelines for medical devices may benefit from contributions by biomedical and clinical engineers. Our study aims to: (i) review and identify gaps in the current HTA guidelines on medical devices, (ii) propose recommendations to optimize the impact of HTA for medical devices, and (iii) reach a consensus among biomedical engineers on these recommendations.
METHODS: A gray literature search of HTA agency Web sites for assessment methods guidelines on devices was conducted. The International Federation of Medical and Biological Engineers (IFMBE) then convened a structured focus group, with experts from different fields, to identify potential gaps in the current HTA guidelines, and to develop recommendations to fill these perceived gaps. The thirty recommendations generated from the focus group were circulated in a Delphi survey to eighty-five biomedical and clinical engineers.
RESULTS: Thirty-two panelists, from seventeen countries, participated in the Delphi survey. The responses showed a strong agreement on twenty-seven of thirty recommendations. Some uncertainties remain about the methods to accurately assess the effectiveness and safety, and interoperability of a medical device with other devices or within the clinical setting.
CONCLUSIONS: As medical devices differ from drug therapies, current HTA methods may not accurately reflect the conclusions of their assessment. Recommendations informed by the focus group discussions and Delphi survey responses aimed to address the perceived gaps, and to provide a more integrated approach in medical device assessments in combining engineering with other perspectives, such as clinical, economic, patient, human factors, ethical, and environmental.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Clinical and biomedical engineering; Guidelines; Health technology assessment; Medical device

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29909792     DOI: 10.1017/S0266462318000314

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Technol Assess Health Care        ISSN: 0266-4623            Impact factor:   2.188


  8 in total

1.  Biomedical/clinical engineering education and certification: fifty years of actions.

Authors:  Nicolas Pallikarakis
Journal:  Health Technol (Berl)       Date:  2022-05-10

2.  Critical Review of European Health-Economic Guidelines for the Health Technology Assessment of Medical Devices.

Authors:  Maximilian Blüher; Sita J Saunders; Virginie Mittard; Rafael Torrejon Torres; Jason A Davis; Rhodri Saunders
Journal:  Front Med (Lausanne)       Date:  2019-11-29

3.  Precision Medicine and Artificial Intelligence: A Pilot Study on Deep Learning for Hypoglycemic Events Detection based on ECG.

Authors:  Mihaela Porumb; Saverio Stranges; Antonio Pescapè; Leandro Pecchia
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2020-01-13       Impact factor: 4.379

4.  Evidence-based funding of new imaging applications and technologies by Medicare in Australia: How it happens and how it can be improved.

Authors:  Hayley Hill; Ruchi Mittal; Tracy Merlin
Journal:  J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol       Date:  2022-03       Impact factor: 1.667

5.  On the universality of medical device regulations: the case of Benin.

Authors:  A Maccaro; D Piaggio; S Leesurakarn; N Husen; S Sekalala; S Rai; L Pecchia
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2022-08-12       Impact factor: 2.908

6.  Exploring the misalignment on the value of further research between payers and manufacturers. A case study on a novel total artificial heart.

Authors:  Carlo Federici; Leandro Pecchia
Journal:  Health Econ       Date:  2022-04-23       Impact factor: 2.395

Review 7.  Health technology assessment of medical devices: current landscape, challenges, and a way forward.

Authors:  Jian Ming; Yunzhen He; Yi Yang; Min Hu; Xinran Zhao; Jun Liu; Yang Xie; Yan Wei; Yingyao Chen
Journal:  Cost Eff Resour Alloc       Date:  2022-10-05

8.  A framework for designing medical devices resilient to low-resource settings.

Authors:  Davide Piaggio; Rossana Castaldo; Marco Cinelli; Sara Cinelli; Alessia Maccaro; Leandro Pecchia
Journal:  Global Health       Date:  2021-06-22       Impact factor: 4.185

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.