Artikel
Need for concretisation in methods guidance from EUnetHTA – a document analysis and consideration of methodological options
Suche in Medline nach
Autoren
-
Gregor Goetz
- Austrian Institute for Health Technology Assessment (AIHTA), Österreich; Technische Universität Berlin, Fachgebiet Management im Gesundheitswesen, Berlin, Deutschland
-
Stefan Schandelmaier
- University Hospital Basel and University of Basel, CLEAR (Clinical Research Empirical Assessment and Recommendations) Methods Center, Division of Clinical Epidemiology, Department of Clinical Research, Basel, Schweiz
-
Reinhard Busse
- Technische Universität Berlin, Fachgebiet Management im Gesundheitswesen, Berlin, Deutschland
-
Claudia Wild
- Austrian Institute for Health Technology Assessment (AIHTA), Österreich
-
Dimitra Panteli
- Technische Universität Berlin, Fachgebiet Management im Gesundheitswesen, Berlin, Deutschland; European Observatory On Health Systems and Policies, Belgien
| Veröffentlicht: | 12. März 2024 |
|---|
Gliederung
Text
Background/research question: Methods guidance within the EUnetHTA Core Model® is well established in the European HTA community. Some of the recommendations, however, leave room for alternative methodological choices. In light of the new HTA-regulation (HTA-R), it is essential for national HTA agencies to both identify topics in which needs for concretisation exist and explore methodological options.
Methods: Twenty-two EUnetHTA guidance documents were screened to identify recommendations and text-passages in need for concretisation using transparent criteria (e.g., broadly defined stating different methodological options). A structured group discussion with eleven researchers from the Austrian HTA institute was conducted to further identify and prioritise needs for concretisation. Identified needs were pre-classified according to the PRISMA statement and presented to the participants who rated the importance on a scale ranging from 1 to 6, with higher scores indicating higher relevance to the participants’ work practice. Methodological options were extracted from the Cochrane Handbook and the handbooks of IQWIG and NICE and charted against the topics.
Results: In total, 30 topics in need of concretisation were identified, 24 during the screening process and six from the group discussion. Most of the topics related to evidence synthesis methods (8 topics), evidence eligibility criteria (8 topics), risk of bias (3 topics) and certainty assessment (3 topics). Other topics related to information sources, search strategy, data collection process, data items, effect measures, and reporting bias. For each identified topic, one or more methodological approaches and recommendations could be identified from the included methodological handbooks.
Conclusion: Researchers from one HTA institute in Austria identified numerous topics in EUnetHTA guidance that require concretisation. To support the practical work of national HTA agencies, we created a structured overview of possible solutions.
