ArticleCureus2024
Medical Devices in the Region of Tuscany, Italy: Definitions of Innovative Devices and Potentially Innovative Devices and Their Impact on Procurement Decisions.
Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In the region of Tuscany in Italy, since 2019, medical devices belonging to risk classes 2b, 3, or active implantable have been managed by a multidisciplinary health-technology assessment body initially composed of eight members and extended to 23 members in 2022, thus creating the Centro Operativo. In 2021, an original algorithm for the identification of innovative devices based on objective criteria was developed and formally recognized over the following years. However, since these criteria identified only a small number of innovative devices, we tried to develop another algorithm aimed at identifying a new classification (called "potentially innovative device"), which was intended to be intermediate between full innovation and no innovation. Since preliminary analyses showed that objective criteria were not able to identify this intermediate classification, we relied on the expert opinion of the Centro Operativo for this purpose. In this article, we analyzed all the devices requested by Centro Operativo in the first half of 2024 for a total of 17 devices. Only one met the criteria of innovation and, therefore, was purchased; the other 11 were evaluated as adequate to be purchased based on clinical and/or economic reasons, whereas the remaining six did not. To create an operational relationship between these decisions and the definitions of innovativeness, the Centro Operativo explored a simple model wherein the 11 devices that failed to meet full innovativeness but were judged adequate to be purchased were classified as potentially innovative. In comparison, the remaining six devices were considered not innovative. On the one hand, we report the results of this preliminary experience; on the other hand, we plan to implement this form of management of high-technology devices into a regional regulation that will be applied for the next months in all hospitals of our region.
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.