Cargando…

Prioritisation criteria for the selection of new diagnostic technologies for evaluation

BACKGROUND: Currently there is no framework for those involved in the identification, evaluation and prioritisation of new diagnostic technologies. Therefore we aimed to develop prioritisation criteria for the assessment of new diagnostic technologies, by gaining international consensus on not only...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Plüddemann, Annette, Heneghan, Carl, Thompson, Matthew, Roberts, Nia, Summerton, Nicholas, Linden-Phillips, Luan, Packer, Claire, Price, Christopher P
Formato: Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2010
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2881057/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20444274
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-10-109
_version_ 1782182083693641728
author Plüddemann, Annette
Heneghan, Carl
Thompson, Matthew
Roberts, Nia
Summerton, Nicholas
Linden-Phillips, Luan
Packer, Claire
Price, Christopher P
author_facet Plüddemann, Annette
Heneghan, Carl
Thompson, Matthew
Roberts, Nia
Summerton, Nicholas
Linden-Phillips, Luan
Packer, Claire
Price, Christopher P
author_sort Plüddemann, Annette
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Currently there is no framework for those involved in the identification, evaluation and prioritisation of new diagnostic technologies. Therefore we aimed to develop prioritisation criteria for the assessment of new diagnostic technologies, by gaining international consensus on not only which criteria should be used, but also their relative importance. METHODS: A two-round Delphi process was used to generate consensus amongst an international panel of twenty-six experts on priority criteria for diagnostic health technology assessment. Participants represented a range of health care and related professions, including government, industry, health services and academia. RESULTS: Based on the responses to the first questionnaire 18 criteria were placed into three categories: high, intermediate and moderate priority. For 16 of the 18 criteria, agreement with the categorisation of the criteria into the high, intermediate and moderate categories was high at ≥ 70% (10 had agreement ≥ 80%). A further questionnaire and panel discussion reduced the criteria to 16 and two categories; seven were classified as high priority and nine intermediate. CONCLUSIONS: This study proposes an objective structure of prioritisation criteria to use when assessing new diagnostic technologies, based on an expert consensus process. The value of these criteria is that no one single component should be used as the decisive driver for prioritisation of new diagnostic technologies for adoption in healthcare settings. Future studies should be directed at establishing the value of these prioritisation criteria across a range of healthcare settings.
format Text
id pubmed-2881057
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2010
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-28810572010-06-05 Prioritisation criteria for the selection of new diagnostic technologies for evaluation Plüddemann, Annette Heneghan, Carl Thompson, Matthew Roberts, Nia Summerton, Nicholas Linden-Phillips, Luan Packer, Claire Price, Christopher P BMC Health Serv Res Research article BACKGROUND: Currently there is no framework for those involved in the identification, evaluation and prioritisation of new diagnostic technologies. Therefore we aimed to develop prioritisation criteria for the assessment of new diagnostic technologies, by gaining international consensus on not only which criteria should be used, but also their relative importance. METHODS: A two-round Delphi process was used to generate consensus amongst an international panel of twenty-six experts on priority criteria for diagnostic health technology assessment. Participants represented a range of health care and related professions, including government, industry, health services and academia. RESULTS: Based on the responses to the first questionnaire 18 criteria were placed into three categories: high, intermediate and moderate priority. For 16 of the 18 criteria, agreement with the categorisation of the criteria into the high, intermediate and moderate categories was high at ≥ 70% (10 had agreement ≥ 80%). A further questionnaire and panel discussion reduced the criteria to 16 and two categories; seven were classified as high priority and nine intermediate. CONCLUSIONS: This study proposes an objective structure of prioritisation criteria to use when assessing new diagnostic technologies, based on an expert consensus process. The value of these criteria is that no one single component should be used as the decisive driver for prioritisation of new diagnostic technologies for adoption in healthcare settings. Future studies should be directed at establishing the value of these prioritisation criteria across a range of healthcare settings. BioMed Central 2010-05-05 /pmc/articles/PMC2881057/ /pubmed/20444274 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-10-109 Text en Copyright ©2010 Plüddemann et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Research article
Plüddemann, Annette
Heneghan, Carl
Thompson, Matthew
Roberts, Nia
Summerton, Nicholas
Linden-Phillips, Luan
Packer, Claire
Price, Christopher P
Prioritisation criteria for the selection of new diagnostic technologies for evaluation
title Prioritisation criteria for the selection of new diagnostic technologies for evaluation
title_full Prioritisation criteria for the selection of new diagnostic technologies for evaluation
title_fullStr Prioritisation criteria for the selection of new diagnostic technologies for evaluation
title_full_unstemmed Prioritisation criteria for the selection of new diagnostic technologies for evaluation
title_short Prioritisation criteria for the selection of new diagnostic technologies for evaluation
title_sort prioritisation criteria for the selection of new diagnostic technologies for evaluation
topic Research article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2881057/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20444274
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-10-109
work_keys_str_mv AT pluddemannannette prioritisationcriteriafortheselectionofnewdiagnostictechnologiesforevaluation
AT heneghancarl prioritisationcriteriafortheselectionofnewdiagnostictechnologiesforevaluation
AT thompsonmatthew prioritisationcriteriafortheselectionofnewdiagnostictechnologiesforevaluation
AT robertsnia prioritisationcriteriafortheselectionofnewdiagnostictechnologiesforevaluation
AT summertonnicholas prioritisationcriteriafortheselectionofnewdiagnostictechnologiesforevaluation
AT lindenphillipsluan prioritisationcriteriafortheselectionofnewdiagnostictechnologiesforevaluation
AT packerclaire prioritisationcriteriafortheselectionofnewdiagnostictechnologiesforevaluation
AT pricechristopherp prioritisationcriteriafortheselectionofnewdiagnostictechnologiesforevaluation