Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T21:54:50.509Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Opportunities to improve reporting of rapid response in health technology assessment

Part of: Special Collection - Methods

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 December 2021

Matheus O. de Almeida Open the ORCID record for Matheus O. de Almeida [Opens in a new window] ,
Thais Montezuma ,
Haliton A. de Oliveira Júnior  and
Cleusa Pinheiro Ferri
Matheus O. de Almeida*
Affiliation:
Health Technology Assessment Unit, Hospital Alemão Oswaldo Cruz, São Paulo, Brazil
Thais Montezuma
Affiliation:
Health Technology Assessment Unit, Hospital Alemão Oswaldo Cruz, São Paulo, Brazil
Haliton A. de Oliveira Júnior
Affiliation:
Health Technology Assessment Unit, Hospital Alemão Oswaldo Cruz, São Paulo, Brazil
Cleusa Pinheiro Ferri
Affiliation:
Health Technology Assessment Unit, Hospital Alemão Oswaldo Cruz, São Paulo, Brazil
*
Author for correspondence: Matheus O. de Almeida, E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Introduction

Mini health technology assessment (HTA) reports have been used to support policy makers and health systems by providing a timely summary of scientific evidence. The objective of this meta-epidemiologic study was to evaluate the quality of reporting of mini-HTA reports published in Brazil.

Methods

An electronic search for all mini-HTA reports published between 2014 and March 2019 was conducted in the SISREBRATS and CONITEC databases. The study selection and data extraction were performed by two independent assessors. The following data were extracted: bibliographic data; research question; characteristics of the population, health technologies and outcomes assessed; eligibility criteria; information about searches and study selection; risk of bias assessment; quality of evidence assessment; synthesis of results; and recommendation about the technology evaluated. A descriptive analysis was used to summarize the information retrieved from all the included mini-HTA reports.

Results

We included 103 mini-HTA reports, the great majority of which (92.3 percent) focused on the coverage of the technologies in the healthcare system, with more than 60 percent being about drugs. Only five mini-HTA reports (4.8 percent) gave reasons for the choice of outcomes, and fifteen (14.5 percent) discriminated between primary and secondary outcomes. All mini-HTAs reported the databases searched and 99 percent of them reported using Medline. Sixty percent of the mini-HTA reported assessing the risk of bias, and 52 percent reported assessing the quality of evidence.

Conclusion

The quality of reporting of the mini-HTA reports performed in Brazil is insufficient and needs to be improved to guarantee transparency and replicability.

Keywords

Health technology assessmentRapid responseMethodological quality
Type
Method
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 38 , Issue 1 , 2022 , e4
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Diretrizes metodológicas: elaboração de pareceres técnico-científicos. Ministério da Saúde, Secretaria de Ciência, Tecnologia e Insumos Estratégicos, Departamento de Ciência e Tecnologia. 4th ed. Brasilia: Ministério da Saúde; 2014. 80 p.Google Scholar
Tricco, AC, Langlois, EV, Straus, SE. Rapid reviews to strengthen health policy and systems: A practical guide. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2017. Licence: CC BY-NC-SA 3.0. IGO.Google Scholar
Garritty, C, Stevens, A, Gartlehner, G, King, V, Kamel, C, Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group. Cochrane rapid reviews methods group to play a leading role in guiding the production of informed high-quality, timely research evidence syntheses. Syst Rev. 2016;5:184.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Harker, J, Kleijnen, J. What is a rapid review? A methodological exploration of rapid reviews in health technology assessments. Int J Evid Based Healthc. 2012;10:397–410.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Silva, MT, Silva, END, Barreto, JOM. Rapid response in health technology assessment: A Delphi study for a Brazilian guideline. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2018;18:51.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gough, D, Thomas, J, Oliver, S. Clarifying differences between review designs and methods. Syst Rev. 2012;1:28.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Khangura, S, Konnyu, K, Cushman, R, Grimshaw, J, Moher, D. Evidence summaries: The evolution of a rapid review approach. Syst Rev. 2012;1:10.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Khangura, S, Polisena, J, Clifford, TJ, Farrah, K, Kamel, C. Rapid review: An emerging approach to evidence synthesis in health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2014;30:20–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wilson, MG, Lavis, JN, Gauvin, FP. Developing a rapid-response program for health system decision-makers in Canada: Findings from an issue brief and stakeholder dialogue. Syst Rev. 2015;4:25.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kelly, SE, Moher, D, Clifford, TJ. Defining rapid reviews: A modified Delphi consensus approach. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2016;32:265–75.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Haby, MM, Chapman, E, Clark, R, Barreto, J, Reveiz, L, Lavis, JN. What are the best methodologies for rapid reviews of the research evidence for evidence-informed decision making in health policy and practice: A rapid review. Health Res Policy Syst. 2016;14:83.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Marshall, IJ, Marshall, R, Wallace, BC, Brassey, J, Thomas, J. Rapid reviews may produce different results to systematic reviews: A meta-epidemiological study. J Clin Epidemiol. 2019;109:30–41.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Reynen, E, Robson, R, Ivory, J, Hwee, J, Straus, SE, Pham, B, et al. A retrospective comparison of systematic reviews with same-topic rapid reviews. J Clin Epidemiol. 2018;96:23–34.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nussbaumer-Streit, B, Klerings, I, Wagner, G, Heise, TL, Dobrescu, AI, Armijo-Olivo, S, et al. Abbreviated literature searches were viable alternatives to comprehensive searches: A meta-epidemiological study. J Clin Epidemiol. 2018;102:1–11.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Glasziou, PP, Shepperd, S, Brassey, J. Can we rely on the best trial? A comparison of individual trials and systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2010;10:23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yuba, TY, Novaes, HMD, de Soarez, PC. Challenges to decision-making processes in the national HTA agency in Brazil: Operational procedures, evidence use and recommendations. Health Res Policy Syst. 2018;16:40.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Page, MJ, McKenzie, JE, Bossuyt, PM, Boutron, I, Hoffmann, TC, Mulrow, CD, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021;372:n71.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shea, BJ, Reeves, BC, Wells, G, Thuku, M, Hamel, C, Moran, J, et al. AMSTAR 2: A critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both. BMJ. 2017;358:j4008.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kidholm, K, Ehlers, L, Korsbek, L, Kjaerby, R, Beck, M. Assessment of the quality of mini-HTA. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2009;25:42–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kelly, SE, Moher, D, Clifford, TJ. Quality of conduct and reporting in rapid reviews: An exploration of compliance with PRISMA and AMSTAR guidelines. Syst Rev. 2016;5:1–19.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tricco, AC, Zarin, W, Antony, J, Hutton, B, Moher, D, Sherifali, D, et al. An international survey and modified Delphi approach revealed numerous rapid review methods. J Clin Epidemiol. 2016;70:61–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Diretrizes metodológicas: elaboração de pareceres técnico-científicos [recurso eletrônico] / Ministério da Saúde, Secretaria de Ciência, Tecnologia, Inovação e Insumos Estratégicos em Saúde, Departamento de Gestão e Incorporação de Tecnologias e Inovação em Saúde. 1ª edição eletrônica com atualizações da 4ª edição impressa; 2021.Google Scholar