Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35989520›Full record

ArticleHealth economics2022

Real-world evidence in health technology assessment of high-risk medical devices: Fit for purpose?

Philip Klein, Hedwig Blommestein, Maiwenn Al, Benedetta Pongiglione, Aleksandra Torbica, Saskia de Groot

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health economics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Assessing medical devices: a qualitative study from the validate perspective.International journal of technology assessment in health care · 2024
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Philip KleinInstitute for Medical Technology Assessment, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, Netherlands.
Hedwig BlommesteinErasmus School of Health Policy & Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, Netherlands.
Maiwenn AlErasmus School of Health Policy & Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, Netherlands.
Benedetta PongiglioneCentre for Research on Health and Social Care Management (CERGAS), Bocconi University, Milan, Italy.ORCID 0000-0001-8539-1554
Aleksandra TorbicaCentre for Research on Health and Social Care Management (CERGAS), Bocconi University, Milan, Italy.
Saskia de GrootInstitute for Medical Technology Assessment, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-2782-3114

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Health technology assessment (HTA) of medical devices (MDs) increasingly rely on real-world evidence (RWE). The aim of this study was to evaluate the type and the quality of the evidence used to assess the (cost-)effectiveness of high risk MDs (Class III) by HTA agencies in Europe (four European HTA agencies and EUnetHTA), with particular focus on RWE. Data were extracted from HTA reports on the type of evidence demonstrating (cost-)effectiveness, and the quality of observational studies of comparative effectiveness using the Good Research for Comparative Effectiveness principles. 25 HTA reports were included that incorporated 28 observational studies of comparative effectiveness. Half of the studies (46%) took important confounding and/or effect modifying variables into account in the design and/or analyses. The most common way of including confounders and/or effect modifiers was through multivariable regression analysis. Other methods, such as propensity score matching, were rarely employed. Furthermore, meaningful analyses to test key assumptions were largely omitted. Resulting recommendations from HTA agencies on MDs is therefore (partially) based on evidence which is riddled with uncertainty. Considering the increasing importance of RWE it is important that the quality of observational studies of comparative effectiveness are systematically assessed when used in decision-making.

Indexed as

Technology Assessment, BiomedicalCost-Benefit AnalysisEuropeHumanshealth technology assessmenthigh risk medical devicesobservational studies of comparative effectivenessreal-world-evidencereimbursement decision-making

Identifiers

PMID35989520
PMCPMC9541731

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.