ArticleBMC health services research2023
Which value aspects are relevant for the evaluation of medical devices? Exploring stakeholders' views through a Web-Delphi process.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Selection and Prioritization of Medical Devices for HTA Evaluation: A Systematic Review of Existing Approaches.Applied health economics and health policy · 2025Pooled it
- Relevant domains for health technology assessment of medical device reimbursement in Brazil's unified health system: a survey and Delphi panel study on stakeholder preferences.International journal of technology assessment in health care · 2025Pooled it
- Domains and Methods of Medical Device Technology Evaluation: A Systematic Review.Public health reviews · 2024Pooled it
- Ethical Considerations in Health Technology Assessment for Precision Medicine: A Delphi Study in a Greek Setting.Journal of personalized medicine · 2026Article
- Health Technology Assessment and Environmental Impact: A Scoping Review of State of Art and Future Perspective.Applied health economics and health policy · 2025Article
- How can health technology assessment be improved to optimise access to medicines? Results from a Delphi study in Europe : Better access to medicines through HTA.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2024Article
- Assessing medical devices: a qualitative study from the validate perspective.International journal of technology assessment in health care · 2024Article
- Applications of Blockchain-Based Technology for Healthcare Devices Post-market Surveillance.Cureus · 2024Article
- Advancing hospital-based health technology assessment: evaluating genomic panel contracting strategies for blood tumors through a multimethodology.International journal of technology assessment in health care · 2023Article
- Personalized Nasal Protective Devices: Importance and Perspectives.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.