Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37291513›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2023

Which value aspects are relevant for the evaluation of medical devices? Exploring stakeholders' views through a Web-Delphi process.

Liliana Freitas, Ana C L Vieira, Mónica D Oliveira, Helena Monteiro, Carlos A Bana E Costa

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Assessing medical devices: a qualitative study from the validate perspective.International journal of technology assessment in health care · 2024
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
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

5 authors.

Liliana FreitasCEG-IST, Instituto Superior Técnico, Universidade de Lisboa, Av. Rovisco Pais, 1049-001, Lisbon, Portugal. liliana.freitas@tecnico.ulisboa.pt.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9513-2476
Ana C L VieiraCEG-IST, Instituto Superior Técnico, Universidade de Lisboa, Av. Rovisco Pais, 1049-001, Lisbon, Portugal.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3863-1070
Mónica D OliveiraCEG-IST, Instituto Superior Técnico, Universidade de Lisboa, Av. Rovisco Pais, 1049-001, Lisbon, Portugal.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4053-9214
Helena MonteiroInfarmed, I. P., Lisbon, Portugal.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4085-875X
Carlos A Bana E CostaCEG-IST, Instituto Superior Técnico, Universidade de Lisboa, Av. Rovisco Pais, 1049-001, Lisbon, Portugal.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7906-379X

Funding

FCT - Foundation for Science and Technology, I.P. - CEG-IST UIDB/00097/2020FCT - Foundation for Science and Technology, I.P. - Individual Doctoral Fellowship 2020.05289.BDFCT - Foundation for Science and Technology, I.P. - MEDI-VALUE project (Developing HTA tools to consensualise MEDIcal devices' VALUE through multicriteria decision analysis) PTDC/EGE-OGE/29699/2017
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundImplementation and uptake of health technology assessment for evaluating medical devices require including aspects that different stakeholders consider relevant, beyond cost and effectiveness. However, the involvement of stakeholders in sharing their views still needs to be improved.

objectiveThis article explores the relevance of distinct value aspects for evaluating different types of medical devices according to stakeholders' views.

methodsThirty-four value aspects collected through literature review and expert validation were the input for a 2-round Web-Delphi process. In the Web-Delphi, a panel of participants from five stakeholders' groups (healthcare professionals, buyers and policymakers, academics, industry, and patients and citizens) judged the relevance of each aspect, by assigning a relevance-level ('Critical', 'Fundamental', 'Complementary', or 'Irrelevant'), for two types of medical devices separately: 'Implantable' and 'In vitro tests based on biomarkers'. Opinions were analysed at the panel and group level, and similarities across devices were identified.

resultsOne hundred thirty-four participants completed the process. No aspects were considered 'Irrelevant', neither for the panel nor for stakeholder groups, in both types of devices. The panel considered effectiveness and safety-related aspects 'Critical' (e.g., 'Adverse events for the patient'), and costs-related aspects 'Fundamental' (e.g., 'Cost of the medical device'). Several additional aspects not included in existing frameworks' literature, e.g., related to environmental impact and devices' usage by the healthcare professional, were deemed as relevant by the panel. A moderate to substantial agreement across and within groups was observed.

conclusionDifferent stakeholders agree on the relevance of including multiple aspects in medical devices' evaluation. This study produces key information to inform the development of frameworks for valuing medical devices, and to guide evidence collection.

Indexed as

Equipment and SuppliesTechnology Assessment, BiomedicalDelphi TechniqueHealth stakeholdersHealth technology assessmentImplantable medical devicesIn vitro tests based on biomarkersMedical devicesWeb-Delphi

Identifiers

PMID37291513
PMCPMC10249179

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.