Objectives: Rapid reviews can be conducted in a narrower time frame, as compared to systematic reviews, by featuring restrictions. To estimate the validity of the results, assessment of methodological quality is required. Our aim was to analyze the methodological restrictions of rapid reviews compared with systematic reviews using the AMSTAR checklist and assess its feasibility for rapid reviews.

Methods: A systematic search for literature on rapid reviews of surgical interventions was conducted in three databases: Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane library. Additionally, health technology assessment (HTA) databases were searched. We analyzed reviews using AMSTAR and additionally compared the results with those of an overview of reviews on the same topic.

Results: Items found more frequently in rapid reviews were search for gray literature (65 percent versus 33 percent), listing of excluded studies (59 percent versus 37 percent), and provision of study characteristics (77 percent versus 44 percent), whereas consideration of study quality in formulating conclusions, conduct of meta-analysis, and statement of conflicts of interest were less frequent. Median time between search and publication was 8 months, with a range between 1 and 27.

Conclusions: With some adjustments, AMSTAR can be used as a checklist for rapid reviews to describe methodological restrictions in comparison to systematic reviews and to roughly estimate the validity of the results. Strikingly, only 14.3 percent of rapid reviews were published within 3 months.

Objectives: Rapid reviews are characterized as an accelerated evidence synthesis approach with no universally accepted methodology or definition. This modified Delphi consensus study aimed to develop a comprehensive set of defining characteristics for rapid reviews that may be used as a functional definition.

Methods: Expert panelists with knowledge in rapid reviews and evidence synthesis were identified. In the first round, panelists were asked to answer a seventeen-item survey addressing a variety of rapid review topics. Results led to the development of statements describing the characteristics of rapid reviews that were circulated to experts for agreement in a second survey round and further revised in a third round. Consensus was reached if ≥70 percent of experts agreed and there was stability in free-text comments.

Results: A panel of sixty-six experts participated. Consensus was reached on ten of eleven statements describing the characteristics of rapid reviews. According to the panel, rapid reviews aim to meet the requirements and timelines of a decision maker and should be conducted in less time than a systematic review. They use a variety of approaches to accelerate the evidence synthesis process, tailor the methods conventionally used to carry out systematic reviews, and use the most rigorous methods that the delivery time frame will allow.

Conclusions: This study achieved consensus on ten statements describing the defining characteristics of rapid reviews based on the opinion of a panel of knowledgeable experts. Areas of disagreement were also highlighted. Findings emphasize the role of the decision maker and stress the importance of transparent reporting.

Objectives: To review and compare current Health Technology Assessment (HTA) activities for medical devices (MDs) across European HTA institutions.

Methods: A comprehensive approach was adopted to identify institutions involved in HTA in European countries. We systematically searched institutional Web sites and other online sources by using a structured tool to extract information on the role and link to decision making, structure, scope, process, methodological approach, and available HTA reports for each included institution.

Results: Information was obtained from eighty-four institutions, forty-seven of which were analyzed. Fifty-four methodological documents from twenty-three agencies in eighteen countries were identified. Only five agencies had separate documents for the assessment of MDs. A few agencies made separate provisions for the assessment of MDs in their general methods. The amount of publicly available HTA reports on MDs varied by device category and agency remit.

Conclusions: Despite growing consensus on their importance and international initiatives, such as the EUnetHTA Core Model®, specific tools for the assessment of MDs are rarely developed and implemented at the national level. Separate additional signposts incorporated in existing general methods guides may be sufficient for the evaluation of MDs.

Objective: As health technology assessment (HTA) organizations in Canada and around the world seek to involve the public and patients in their activities, frameworks to guide decisions about whom to involve, through which mechanisms, and at what stages of the HTA process have been lacking. The aim of this study was to describe the development and outputs of a comprehensive framework for involving the public and patients in a government agency's HTA process.

Methods: The framework was informed by a synthesis of international practice and published literature, a dialogue with local, national and international stakeholders, and the deliberations of a government agency's public engagement subcommittee in Ontario, Canada.

Results: The practice and literature synthesis failed to identify a single, optimal approach to involving the public and patients in HTA. Choice of methods should be considered in the context of each HTA stage, goals for incorporating societal and/or patient perspectives into the process, and relevant societal and/or patient values at stake. The resulting framework is structured around four actionable elements: (i) guiding principles and goals for public and patient involvement (PPI) in HTA, (ii) the establishment of a common language to support PPI efforts, (iii) a flexible array of PPI approaches, and (iv) on-going evaluation of PPI to inform adjustments over time.

Conclusions: A public and patient involvement framework has been developed for implementation in a government agency’s HTA process. Core elements of this framework may apply to other organizations responsible for HTA and health system quality improvement.

Objectives: Treatment switching refers to the situation in a randomized controlled trial where patients switch from their randomly assigned treatment onto an alternative. Often, switching is from the control group onto the experimental treatment. In this instance, a standard intention-to-treat analysis does not identify the true comparative effectiveness of the treatments under investigation. We aim to describe statistical methods for adjusting for treatment switching in a comprehensible way for nonstatisticians, and to summarize views on these methods expressed by stakeholders at the 2014 Adelaide International Workshop on Treatment Switching in Clinical Trials.

Methods: We describe three statistical methods used to adjust for treatment switching: marginal structural models, two-stage adjustment, and rank preserving structural failure time models. We draw upon discussion heard at the Adelaide International Workshop to explore the views of stakeholders on the acceptability of these methods.

Results: Stakeholders noted that adjustment methods are based on assumptions, the validity of which may often be questionable. There was disagreement on the acceptability of adjustment methods, but consensus that when these are used, they should be justified rigorously. The utility of adjustment methods depends upon the decision being made and the processes used by the decision-maker.

Conclusions: Treatment switching makes estimating the true comparative effect of a new treatment challenging. However, many decision-makers have reservations with adjustment methods. These, and how they affect the utility of adjustment methods, require further exploration. Further technical work is required to develop adjustment methods to meet real world needs, to enhance their acceptability to decision-makers.

Background: The adoption of new medical devices and diagnostics is often hampered by lack of published evidence which makes conventional health technology assessment (HTA) difficult. We now have 5 years’ experience of the Medical Technologies Advisory Committee of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) in the United Kingdom, addressing this problem. This committee assesses devices and diagnostics against claims of advantage, to produce guidance on adoption for the health service.

Methods: We have reflected on the practical, technical, and intellectual processes we have used in developing guidance for the health service.

Results: When scientific and clinical evidence is sparse, promise and plausibility play an increased part in decision-making. Drivers of promise include a clear design and mechanism of action, the possibility of radical improvement in care and/or resource use, and improving health outcomes for large numbers of patients. Plausibility relates to judgements about the whether the promise is likely to be delivered in a “real world” setting. Promise and plausibility need to be balanced against the amount of evidence available. We examine the influence they may have on decision-making compared with other factors such as risk and cost.

Conclusions: Decisions about adoption of new devices and diagnostics with little evidence are influenced by judgements of their promise and the plausibility of claims that they will provide benefits in a real-world setting. This kind of decision making needs to be transparent and this article explains how these influences can be balanced against the use of more familiar criteria.

Objectives: A patient reported outcome (PRO) is “any report of the status of a patient's health condition that comes directly from the patient without interpretation of the patient's response by a clinician or anyone else” (USFDA 2009). PROs are discussed widely, and many regard the patients’ perspective on treatment benefit as very valuable. Although many PROs have shown satisfactory measurement properties including reliability, validity, and responsiveness, there is great concern about risk of bias, that is, in clinical trials.

Methods: Differences in perspectives of PRO measurement in rare diseases are given arising from methodology, clinical, HTA, and patient advocacy views.

Results: PROs are playing an important role in dealing with treatment benefit especially in small sample size as occurring often in rare diseases. Challenges remain especially regarding lack of responsiveness of generic measures, limited capture of all patient relevant aspects, study design and high risk of bias.

Conclusions: PROs seem a valuable instrument to detect patient relevant aspects in rare diseases. They should be seen in addition to other approved assessment methods as randomized controlled trials but not as their substitute.

Objectives: The aim of this project was to identify the ten most important research questions for attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) treatment as identified by people with ADHD together with personnel involved in the treatment of ADHD in school, health, and correction services.

Methods: A working group consisting of consumers and personnel was established. The method for prioritization was primarily based on James Lind Alliance's guidebook, consisting of an interim priority setting exercise and a workshop.

Results: The top ten list includes the risk of drug dependency later in life when treated with methylphenidate as a child, teacher support, multimodal therapy, comparisons between atomoxetine and methylphenidate, methylphenidate treatment in substance abusers, parental support programmes, supported conversation, computer-aided working memory training, psychoeducative treatment, and melatonin.

Conclusions: We have shown that consumers and personnel can reach consensus on research priorities for treatments for ADHD. We encourage researchers and funders to consider the list for future studies.

Objectives: The aim of this study was to develop criteria for the prioritization of topics for health technology assessment (HTA) in the healthcare system of Kazakhstan.

Methods: Initial proposals for criteria were suggested through consultation with Ministry of Health (MoH) policy areas. These were refined through a workshop attended by HTA department staff, persons from medical universities and research institutes, and MoH policy makers. The workshop included discussion on methods used in international HTA practice. Opinions of participants on selection of criteria from those specified in a review of prioritization processes were used to define a list for inclusion in an instrument for routine use. A scoring system was established in later discussion.

Results: Selected criteria for HTA prioritization were burden of disease, availability of alternative technology, clinical effectiveness, economic efficiency, budget impact, and ethical, legal, and/or psychosocial aspects. For each criterion, a health technology under consideration is given a score from 3 (High) to 1 (Low). The total score determines whether the technology is of high to medium priority or of low priority. Determination of priorities for assessment, using the instrument, should be carried out by an expert group appointed by the MoH. The process was applied in 2014 to a selection of topics, and three health technologies were chosen for full assessments.

Conclusions: Criteria for prioritization have evolved with development of the HTA program in Kazakhstan. A method for HTA prioritization has been developed that is easy to apply, requires comparatively few resources, and is compatible with processes required by the MoH.

Objectives: External experts can be consulted at different stages of an HTA. When using vague information sources, it is particularly important to plan, analyze, and report the information processing in a standardized and transparent way. Our objective was to search and analyze recommendations regarding where and how to include expert data in HTA.

Methods: We performed a systematic database search and screened the Internet pages of seventy-seven HTA organizations for guidelines, recommendations, and methods papers that address the inclusion of experts in HTA. Relevant documents were downloaded, and information was extracted in a standard form. Results were merged in tables and narrative evidence synthesis.

Results: From twenty-two HTA organizations, we included forty-two documents that consider the use of expert opinion in HTA. Nearly all documents mention experts in the step of preparation of the evidence report. Six documents address their role for priority setting of topics, fifteen for scoping, twelve for the appraisal of evidence and results, another twelve documents mention experts when considering the dissemination of HTA results.

During the assessment step, experts are most often asked to amend the literature search or to provide expertise for special data analyses. Another issue for external experts is to appraise the HTA results and refer them back to a clinical and social context. Little is reported on methods of expert elicitation when their input substitutes study data.

Conclusions: Despite existing recommendations on the use of expert opinion in HTA, common standards for elicitation are scarce in HTA guidelines.

Objectives: We describe a new evidence-based method for screening and evaluating emerging medical technologies. Washington State agencies, under legislative direction, have granted authority to its agency Medical Directors and policy leaders to make coverage decisions on medical technologies using a “dossier” process. The dossier process is employed when technology advocates or manufacturers request Washington State healthcare purchasers to pay for new and emerging technologies. This offers the advocate an opportunity to submit scientific evidence and information classically associated with a more formal health technology assessment.

Methods: The submitted information is independently reviewed and summarized for Washington State's public healthcare purchasers allowing a more standardized coverage decision for all public purchasers in Washington State.

Results: This process has allowed Washington State to make twelve evidence-based coverage decisions at a fraction of the cost of classic technology assessment. To date, of twelve reviews over 6 years, one health technology was approved for coverage, ten were not covered and one did not require a coverage decision.

Conclusions: This evidence-based dossier process has yielded high-value coverage decisions of new and emerging medical technologies for public healthcare purchasers in Washington State.

Objectives: There is little specific guidance on performing an early cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) of medical tests. We developed a framework with general steps and applied it to two cases.

Methods: Step 1 is to narrow down the scope of analysis by defining the test's application, target population, outcome measures, and investigating current test strategies and test strategies if the new test were available. Step 2 is to collect evidence on the current test strategy. Step 3 is to develop a conceptual model of the current and new test strategies. Step 4 is to conduct the early-CEA by evaluating the potential (cost-)effectiveness of the new test in clinical practice. Step 5 involves a decision about the further development of the test.

Results: The first case illustrated the impact of varying the test performance on the headroom (maximum possible price) of an add-on test for patients with an intermediate-risk of having rheumatoid arthritis. Analyses showed that the headroom is particularly dependent on test performance. The second case estimated the minimum performance of a confirmatory imaging test to predict individual stroke risk. Different combinations of sensitivity and specificity were found to be cost-effective; if these combinations are attainable, the medical test developer can feel more confident about the value of further development of the test.

Conclusions: A well-designed early-CEA methodology can improve the ability to develop (cost-)effective medical tests in an efficient manner. Early-CEAs should continuously integrate insights and evidence that arise through feedback, which may convince developers to return to earlier steps.

Objectives: The aim of this study was to determine the aspects of expert advice that decision makers find most useful in the development of evidence-based guidance and to identify the characteristics of experts providing the most useful advice.

Methods: First, semi-structured interviews were conducted with seventeen members of the Interventional Procedures Advisory Committee of the UK's National Institute of Health and Care Excellence. Interviews examined the usefulness of expert advice during guidance development. Transcripts were analyzed inductively to identify themes. Second, data were extracted from 211 experts’ questionnaires for forty-one consecutive procedures. Usefulness of advice was scored using an index developed through the qualitative work. Associations between usefulness score and characteristics of the expert advisor were investigated using univariate and multivariate analyses.

Results: Expert opinion was seen as a valued complement to empirical evidence, providing context and tacit knowledge unavailable in published literature, but helpful for interpreting it. Interviewees also valued advice on the training and experience required to perform a procedure, on patient selection criteria and the place of a procedure within a clinical management pathway. Limitations of bias in expert opinion were widely acknowledged and skepticism expressed regarding the anecdotal nature of advice on safety or efficacy outcomes. Quantitative analysis demonstrated that the most useful advice was given by clinical experts with direct personal experience of the procedure, particularly research experience.

Conclusions: Evidence-based guidance production is often characterized as a rational, pipeline process. This ignores the valuable role that expert opinion plays in guidance development, complementing and supporting the interpretation of empirical data.

Objectives: This study assesses the use of routinely collected claims data for managed entry agreements (MEA) in the illustrative context of German statutory health insurance (SHI) funds.

Methods: Based on a nonsystematic literature review, the data needs of different MEA were identified. A value-based typology to classify MEA on the basis of these data needs was developed. The typology is oriented toward health outcomes and utilization and costs, key components of a new technology's value. For each MEA type, the suitability of claims data in establishing evidence of the novel technology's value in routine care was systematically assessed. Assessment criteria were data availability, completeness, timeliness, confidentiality, reliability, and validity.

Results: Claims data are better suited to MEA addressing uncertainty regarding the utilization and costs of a novel technology in routine care. In schemes where safety aspects or clinical effectiveness are assessed, the role of claims data is limited because clinical information is not included in sufficient detail.

Conclusions: The suitability of claims data depends on the source of uncertainty and, in consequence, the outcome measures chosen in the agreements. In all schemes, the validity of claims data should be judged with caution as data are collected for billing purposes. This framework may support manufacturers and payers in selecting the most suitable contract type and agreeing on contract conditions. More research is necessary to validate these results and to address remaining medical, economic, legal, and ethical questions of using claims data for MEA.

Objectives: The regularly structured adaptation of health technology assessment (HTA) programs is of utmost importance to sustain the relevance of the products for stakeholders and to justify investment of scarce financial resources. This study describes internal adjustments and external measures taken to ensure the Horizon Scanning Programme in Oncology (HSO) is current.

Methods: Formal evaluation methods comprising a survey, a download, an environmental analysis, and a Web site questionnaire were used to evaluate user satisfaction.

Results: The evaluation showed that users were satisfied with HSO outputs in terms of timeliness, topics selected, and depth of information provided. Discussion of these findings with an expert panel led to changes such as an improved dissemination strategy and the introduction of an additional output, that is, the publication of a league table of emerging oncology drugs. The rather high level of international usage and the environmental analysis highlighted a considerable overlap in topics assessed and, thus, the potential for international collaboration. As a consequence, thirteen reports were jointly published based on eleven “calls for collaboration.” To further facilitate collaboration and the usability of reports for other agencies, HSO reports will be adjusted according to tools developed at a European level.

Conclusions: Evaluation of the impact of HTA programs allows the tailoring of outputs to fit the needs of the target population. However, within a fast developing HTA community, estimates of impact will increasingly be determined by international collaborative efforts. Refined methods and a broader definition of impact are needed to ultimately capture the efficiency of national HTA programs.

Background: Relative effectiveness has become a key concern of health policy. In Europe, this is because of the need for early information to guide reimbursement and funding decisions about new medical technologies. However, ways that effectiveness (does it work?) and efficacy (can it work?) might differ across health systems are poorly understood.

Methods: This study proposes an analytical framework, drawing on production function theory, to systematically identify and quantify the determinants of relative effectiveness and sources of variation between populations and healthcare systems. We consider how methods such as stochastic frontier analysis and data envelopment analysis using a Malmquist productivity index could in principle be used to generate evidence on, and improve understanding about, the sources of variation in relative effectiveness between countries and over time.

Results: Better evidence on factors driving relative effectiveness could: inform decisions on how to best use a new technology to maximum effectiveness; establish the need if any for follow-up post-launch studies, and provide evidence of the impact of new health technologies on outcomes in different healthcare systems.

Conclusions: The health production function approach for assessment of relative effectiveness is complementary to traditional experimental and observational studies, focusing on identifying, collecting, and analyzing data at the national level, enabling comparisons to take place. There is a strong case for exploring the use of this approach to better understand the impact of new medicines and devices for improvements in health outcomes.

Background: Pharmaceuticals’ relative effectiveness has come to the fore in the policy arena, reflecting the need to understand how relative efficacy (what can work) translates into added benefit in routine clinical use (what does work). European payers and licensing authorities assess value for money and post-launch benefit–risk profiles, and efforts to standardize assessments of relative effectiveness across the European Union (EU) are under way. However, the ways that relative effectiveness differs across EU healthcare settings are poorly understood.

Methods: To understand which factors influence differences in relative effectiveness, we developed an analytical framework that treats the healthcare system as a health production function. Using evidence on breast cancer from England, Spain, and Sweden as a case study, we investigated the reasons why the relative effectiveness of a new drug might vary across healthcare systems. Evidence was identified from a literature review and national clinical guidance.

Results: The review included thirteen international studies and thirty country-specific studies. Cross-country differences in population age structure, deprivation, and educational attainment were consistently associated with variation in outcomes. Screening intensity appeared to drive differences in survival, although the impact on mortality was unclear.

Conclusions: The way efficacy translates into relative effectiveness across health systems is likely to be influenced by a range of complex and interrelated factors. These factors could inform government and payer policy decisions on ways to optimize relative effectiveness, and help increase understanding of the potential transferability of data on relative effectiveness from one health system to another.

Objectives: Equity is one of the founding principles in most healthcare systems. Financial constraints entail an increased risk of exacerbating inequities and a greater need for evidence-based decisions. It is, therefore, both important and timely to enquire how equity can be addressed in health technology assessment (HTA) practice. We aimed to explore related practices from a broad range of HTA agencies, identify exemplary approaches and common concerns, and offer insights for future considerations.

Methods: HTA agencies for which both methodological guides and HTA reports were publicly available were selected from an initial comprehensive pool. Information was extracted on issues ranging from a general commitment to fairness to specific measures targeting both methodological and process-related elements.

Results: Methodological documents and ninety-eight reports from nineteen agencies were analyzed. Our findings indicate that equity was not a standard consideration in HTA report production. The nature of specific approaches and the amount of resources invested into including an equity perspective varied considerably. Specific measures (e.g., appropriate information sources, analytical tools, and schemes) were mentioned by almost half of the agencies analyzed. Albeit sporadic, both horizontal and vertical equity considerations were identified in included HTA reports.

Conclusions: While varying legal contexts and institutional principles can lead to different interpretations of equity at the decision point, a combination of methodological and process-related practices could contribute to more equity-sensitive evaluations, especially in conjunction with enhanced dissemination of existing methodological tools. Networking initiatives on behalf of existing collaborating platforms could play an important role in this direction.

Objectives: The suitability of general HTA methodology for medical devices is gaining interest as a topic of scientific discourse. Given the broad range of medical devices, there might be differences between groups of devices that impact both the necessity and the methods of their assessment. Our aim is to develop a taxonomy that provides researchers and policy makers with an orientation tool on how to approach the assessment of different types of medical devices.

Methods: Several classifications for medical devices based on varying rationales for different regulatory and reporting purposes were analyzed in detail to develop a comprehensive taxonomic model.

Results: The taxonomy is based on relevant aspects of existing classification schemes incorporating elements of risk and functionality. Its 9 × 6 matrix distinguishes between the diagnostic or therapeutic nature of devices and considers whether the medical device is directly used by patients, constitutes part of a specific procedure, or can be used for a variety of procedures. We considered the relevance of different device categories in regard to HTA to be considerably variable, ranging from high to low.

Conclusions: Existing medical device classifications cannot be used for HTA as they are based on different underlying logics. The developed taxonomy combines different device classification schemes used for different purposes. It aims at providing decision makers with a tool enabling them to consider device characteristics in detail across more than one dimension. The placement of device groups in the matrix can provide decision support on the necessity of conducting a full HTA.

Objectives: Many of the currently used health technologies have never been systematically assessed or are misused, overused or superseded. Therefore, they may be ineffective. Active identification of ineffectiveness in health care is gaining importance to facilitate best care for patients and optimal use of limited resources. The present research analyzed processes and experiences of programs for identifying ineffective health technologies. The goal of this study was to elucidate factors that facilitate implementation.

Methods: Based on an overview article, a systematic literature search and unsystematic hand-search were conducted. Further information was gained from international experts.

Results: Seven programs were identified that include identification, prioritization and assessment of ineffective health technologies and dissemination of recommendations. The programs are quite similar regarding their goals, target groups and criteria for identification and prioritization. Outputs, mainly HTA reports or lists, are mostly disseminated by means of the internet. Top–down and bottom–up programs both have benefits in terms of implementation of recommendations, either as binding guidelines and decisions or as nonbinding information for physicians and other stakeholders. Crucial facilitators of implementation are political will, transparent processes and broad stakeholder involvement focusing on physicians.

Conclusions: All programs can improve the quality of health care and enable cost reduction in supportive surrounding conditions. Physicians and patients must be continuously involved in the process of evaluating health technologies. Additionally, decision makers must support programs and translate recommendations into concrete actions.