Cargando…

HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT ON CERVICAL CANCER SCREENING, 2000–2014

Objectives: The aim of this study was to conduct a review of health technology assessments (HTAs) in cervical cancer screening to highlight the most common metrics HTA agencies use to evaluate and recommend cervical cancer screening technologies. Methods: The Center for Reviews and Dissemination (CR...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Lahue, Betsy J., Baginska, Eva, Li, Sophia S., Parisi, Monika
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Cambridge University Press 2015
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4535324/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26179276
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0266462315000197
_version_ 1782385591272341504
author Lahue, Betsy J.
Baginska, Eva
Li, Sophia S.
Parisi, Monika
author_facet Lahue, Betsy J.
Baginska, Eva
Li, Sophia S.
Parisi, Monika
author_sort Lahue, Betsy J.
collection PubMed
description Objectives: The aim of this study was to conduct a review of health technology assessments (HTAs) in cervical cancer screening to highlight the most common metrics HTA agencies use to evaluate and recommend cervical cancer screening technologies. Methods: The Center for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD), MedLine, and national HTA agency databases were searched using keywords (“cervical cancer screening” OR “cervical cancer” OR “cervical screening”) and “HTA” from January 2000 to October 2014. Non-English language reports without English summaries, non-HTA reports, HTAs unrelated to a screening intervention and HTAs without sufficient summaries available online were excluded. We used various National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) methods to extract key assessment criteria and to determine whether a change in screening practice was recommended. Results: One hundred and ten unique HTA reports were identified; forty-four HTAs from seventeen countries met inclusion criteria. All reports evaluated technologies for use among women. Ten cervical screening technologies were identified either as an intervention or a comparator. The most common outcome metric evaluated was diagnostic accuracy, followed by economic effectiveness. Additional outcome metrics such as the use of adjunct testing, screening intervals, and age-specific testing were commonly evaluated. Nearly one-third (fifteen of forty-four) of HTAs recommended a change in practice. Conclusions: This review highlights popular metrics used in HTAs for cervical cancer screening. Clinical and economic effectiveness metrics have been consistently assessed in HTAs, while the use of adjunct testing, screening intervals, and age-specific screening became increasingly prevalent from after 2007. Moreover, we observed an increase in optimized recommendations after 2007.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4535324
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2015
publisher Cambridge University Press
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-45353242015-08-18 HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT ON CERVICAL CANCER SCREENING, 2000–2014 Lahue, Betsy J. Baginska, Eva Li, Sophia S. Parisi, Monika Int J Technol Assess Health Care Assessments Objectives: The aim of this study was to conduct a review of health technology assessments (HTAs) in cervical cancer screening to highlight the most common metrics HTA agencies use to evaluate and recommend cervical cancer screening technologies. Methods: The Center for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD), MedLine, and national HTA agency databases were searched using keywords (“cervical cancer screening” OR “cervical cancer” OR “cervical screening”) and “HTA” from January 2000 to October 2014. Non-English language reports without English summaries, non-HTA reports, HTAs unrelated to a screening intervention and HTAs without sufficient summaries available online were excluded. We used various National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) methods to extract key assessment criteria and to determine whether a change in screening practice was recommended. Results: One hundred and ten unique HTA reports were identified; forty-four HTAs from seventeen countries met inclusion criteria. All reports evaluated technologies for use among women. Ten cervical screening technologies were identified either as an intervention or a comparator. The most common outcome metric evaluated was diagnostic accuracy, followed by economic effectiveness. Additional outcome metrics such as the use of adjunct testing, screening intervals, and age-specific testing were commonly evaluated. Nearly one-third (fifteen of forty-four) of HTAs recommended a change in practice. Conclusions: This review highlights popular metrics used in HTAs for cervical cancer screening. Clinical and economic effectiveness metrics have been consistently assessed in HTAs, while the use of adjunct testing, screening intervals, and age-specific screening became increasingly prevalent from after 2007. Moreover, we observed an increase in optimized recommendations after 2007. Cambridge University Press 2015 /pmc/articles/PMC4535324/ /pubmed/26179276 http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0266462315000197 Text en © Cambridge University Press 2015 http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Assessments
Lahue, Betsy J.
Baginska, Eva
Li, Sophia S.
Parisi, Monika
HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT ON CERVICAL CANCER SCREENING, 2000–2014
title HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT ON CERVICAL CANCER SCREENING, 2000–2014
title_full HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT ON CERVICAL CANCER SCREENING, 2000–2014
title_fullStr HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT ON CERVICAL CANCER SCREENING, 2000–2014
title_full_unstemmed HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT ON CERVICAL CANCER SCREENING, 2000–2014
title_short HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT ON CERVICAL CANCER SCREENING, 2000–2014
title_sort health technology assessment on cervical cancer screening, 2000–2014
topic Assessments
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4535324/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26179276
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0266462315000197
work_keys_str_mv AT lahuebetsyj healthtechnologyassessmentoncervicalcancerscreening20002014
AT baginskaeva healthtechnologyassessmentoncervicalcancerscreening20002014
AT lisophias healthtechnologyassessmentoncervicalcancerscreening20002014
AT parisimonika healthtechnologyassessmentoncervicalcancerscreening20002014