Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-99c86f546-t82dr Total loading time: 0.337 Render date: 2021-12-01T20:21:44.512Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true, "newUsageEvents": true }

Comparison of the assessment of five new interventional procedures in different countries

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 January 2010

Jonathan Plumb
Affiliation:
National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence
Georgios Lyratzopoulos
Affiliation:
National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence and University of Cambridge
Helen Gallo
Affiliation:
National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence
Bruce Campbell
Affiliation:
National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence and Universities of Exeter and Plymouth

Abstract

Objectives: The aim of this study was to identify and compare health technology assessments of the same new interventional procedures produced in different countries.

Methods: We selected five new interventional procedures and studied related assessments produced in different countries.

Results: There were twenty assessments (range, 3–5 per procedure) from nine countries—fourteen from Australia, Canada, and United Kingdom. The number of primary RCTs cited by the assessments ranged from 0 to 13. In the assessment reports, “headline” statements about the strength of evidence for efficacy (73 percent) were made more frequently than for safety (53 percent). These statements were scored for their apparent judgment of the strength of the evidence—1 (poor) to 5 (strong)—and received scores of 3 or less in all but four cases. Recommendations about additional research were included in 55 percent of the assessments. Statements in assessments about other aspects of use of the procedures were included more infrequently—in 35 percent for patient selection, in 20 percent for consent issues, and in 15 percent for types of clinical teams. Recommendations about appropriate healthcare settings, or about operator training, were included only in assessments produced by a single organization.

Conclusion: There was a only small number of assessments world-wide, for a range of new procedures with potentially high impact. Where available, assessments were produced on a relatively poor evidence base. International collaboration in evidence appraisal and review, and in the gathering of new data through research or registers, could improve the advice available to healthcare systems worldwide about the adoption of new interventional procedures.

Type
METHODS
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. ASERNIP-S Australian Safety and Efficacy Register for Interventional Procedures—Surgical. Mission statement. http://www.surgeons.org/Content/NavigationMenu/Research/ASERNIPS/default.htm (accessed August 2009).Google Scholar
2. ASERNIP-S. New and emerging techniques—Surgical procedure brief. Secondary transperitoneal cryotherapy for carcinoma of the prostate. June 2003. http://www.surgeons.org/Content/ContentFolders/News/ASERNIPS/HorizonScanningReports/Secondary_Transperitoneal_Cryotherapy.pdf (accessed August 2009).Google Scholar
3. Banerjee, S, Babidge, W, Cuncins-Hearn, A, et al. Lung volume reduction surgery for emphysema. Technology overview no 17. Ottawa: Canadian Coordinating Office for Health Technology Assessment; 2005. http://cadth.ca/index.php/en/hta/reports-publications/search/publication/573 (accessed August 2009).Google Scholar
4. Campbell, B, Patrick, H, Barnes, S, Marlow, M. How should accredited specialists be trained to do new procedures? Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2009;91:9194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5. Campbell, WB, Barnes, SJ, Kirby, RA, et al. Association of study type, sample size, and follow-up length with type of recommendation produced by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence Interventional Procedures Programme. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2007;23:101107.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6. Centro Cochrane do Brasil. Estimulação cerebral profunda com uso de eletrodos para tratamento da doença de parkinson: estudo comparativo com procedimentos neuroablativos Sao Paulo 2005. http://portal.saude.gov.br/portal/arquivos/pdf/deep_brain_stimulation_for_parkinson_disease.pdf (accessed August 2009).Google Scholar
7. Fisher, A, Brady, B. Vacuum assisted wound closure therapy. Issues in Emerging Health Technologies Issue 44. The Canadian Coordinating office for Health Technology Assessment. March 2003. http://www.cadth.ca/media/pdf/221_vac_cetap_e.pdf (accessed August 2009).Google Scholar
8. Lyratzopoulos, G, Patrick, H, Campbell, B. Registers needed for new interventional procedures. Lancet. 2008;371:17341736.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9. Medical Service Advisory Committee. Deep brain stimulation for the symptoms of Parkinson's Disease Assessment Report. MSAC application 1092. May 2006. http://www.msac.gov.au/internet/msac/publishing.nsf/Content/app1092–1 (accessed March 2009).Google Scholar
10. Medical Service Advisory Committee. Lung volume reduction surgery. Assessment Report. MSAC application 1011. February 2001. http://www.msac.gov.au/internet/msac/publishing.nsf/Content/app1011–1 (accessed August 2009).Google Scholar
11. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Interventional Procedures Guidance 19: Deep brain stimulation for the symptoms of Parkinson's Disease. November 2003. http://www.nice.org.uk/Guidance/IPG19 (accessed August 2009).Google Scholar
12. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Interventional Procedures Guidance 114: Lung volume reduction surgery for advanced emphysema. February 2005. http://www.nice.org.uk/Guidance/IPG114 (accessed August 2009).Google Scholar
13. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Interventional Procedures Guidance 119: Cryotherapy for recurrent prostate cancer. May 2005 http://www.nice.org.uk/IPG119 (accessed August 2009).Google Scholar
14. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Interventional Procedures Guidance 168: Percutaneous radiofrequency ablation for atrial fibrillation appears. April 2006. http://www.nice.org.uk/Guidance/IPG168/ (accessed August 2009).Google Scholar
15. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. The interventional procedures programme — Programme manual. http://www.nice.org.uk/aboutnice/howwework/developingniceinterventionalprocedures/interventionalproceduresprogrammemanual/the_interventional_procedures_programme__programme_manual.jsp (accessed August 2009).Google Scholar
16. Noorani, HZ, Yee, R, Marshall, D, et al. Radiofrequency catheter ablation for cardiac arrhythmias: A clinical and economic review. Ottawa: Canadian Coordinating Office for Health Technology Assessment; 2002. Technology report no 25. http://cadth.ca/index.php/en/hta/reports-publications/search/publication/319 (accessed August 2009).Google Scholar
17. Pham, CT, Middleton, P, Maddern, G. Vacuum-assisted closure for the management of wounds: An accelerated systematic review. ASERNIP-S Report No. 37. Adelaide, South Australia: ASERNIP-S, December 2003. http://www.surgeons.org/Content/ContentFolders/News/ASERNIPS/AcceleratedSystematicReviews/VACaccelreview1203.pdf (accessed August 2009).Google Scholar
18. Pichon Riviere, A, Augustovski, F, Ferrante, D, et al. Radiofrequency catheter ablation technique in atrial fibrillation. Instituto de Efectividad Clínica y Sanitaria (IECS) May 2005. http://www.iecs.org.ar/iecs-visor-publicacion.php?cod_publicacion=155&origen_publicacion=publicaciones (accessed August 2009).Google Scholar
19. Plumb, J, Campbell, B, Georgios Lyratzopoulos, G. How guidance on the use of interventional procedures is produced in different countries: an international survey. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2009;25:124133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
20. Samson, DJ, Lefevre, F, Aronson, N. Wound-healing technologies: Low-level laser and vacuum-assisted closure. Evidence Report/Technology Assessment No. 111. (Prepared by the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association Technology Evaluation Center Evidence-based Practice Center, under Contract No. 290-02-0026.) AHRQ Publication No. 05-E005-2. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. December 2004. http://www.ahrq.gov/clinic/epcsums/woundsum.htm (accessed August 2009).Google ScholarPubMed
21. Simpson, S, Packer, C, Carlsson, P, et al. Early identification and assessment of new and emerging health technologies: actions, progress, and the future direction of an international collaboration – EuroScan. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2008;24:518525.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
22. Stirling, G, Babidge, W, Peacock, M, et al. Systematic review of lung volume reduction surgery—Updated and re-appraised 2000. ASERNIP-S Report No. 18, Second Edition, Adelaide, South Australia: ASERNIP-S. May 2000. http://www.surgeons.org/Content/ContentFolders/News/ASERNIPS/Systematicreviews/LVRSreview0699.pdf (accessed August 2009).Google Scholar
23. The Canadian Coordinating Office for Health Technology Assessment. Pre-assessment No 14: Deep brain stimulation for patients with Parkinson's disease. December 2005. http://cadth.ca/media/pdf/224_No14_deepbrain_preassess_e.pdf (accessed August 2009).Google Scholar
24. The Canadian Coordinating Office for Health Technology Assessment. Pre-assessment No 32: Cryotherapy for prostate cancer. February 2004. http://cadth.ca/media/pdf/276_No32_cryotherapy_preassess_e.pdf (accessed August 2009).Google Scholar
25. The Swedish Council on Technology Assessment in Health Care. SBU alert—Early assessment of new health technologies. Catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation. Report no 2005-02. February 2005. http://www.sbu.se/upload/Publikationer/Content0/3/Catheter_Ablation_Atrial_Fibrillation_200502.pdf (accessed August 2009).Google Scholar
26. Vlayen, J, Camberlin, C, Ramaekers, D. Vacuümgeassisteerde Wondbehandeling: een Rapid Assessment. Health Technology Assessment (HTA). Brussels: Federaal Kenniscentrum voor de Gezondheidszorg (KCE); 2007. KCE reports 61A (D2007/10.273/30). http://www.kce.fgov.be/index_en.aspx?SGREF=5223&CREF=9622 (accessed August 2009).Google Scholar
27. Vist, GE, Gjesdal, K, Rossvoll, O et al. , Curative catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation: A systematic review. Norway Knowledge Centre for Health Services. Poster presentation Health Technology Assessment International 3rd Annual Meeting. Adelaide 2006. http://www.kunnskapssenteret.no/binary/3304/file (accessed August 2009).Google Scholar
28. Wilson, CB. Adoption of new surgical technology. BMJ. 2006;332:112114.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Supplementary material: File

Plumb et al,. supplementary material

Table 1

Download Plumb et al,. supplementary material(File)
File 39 KB
4
Cited by

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Comparison of the assessment of five new interventional procedures in different countries
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Comparison of the assessment of five new interventional procedures in different countries
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Comparison of the assessment of five new interventional procedures in different countries
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *