Skip to main content
    • Aa
    • Aa
  • Get access
    Check if you have access via personal or institutional login
  • Cited by 2
  • Cited by
    This article has been cited by the following publications. This list is generated based on data provided by CrossRef.

    Søreide, Kjetil Alderson, Derek Bergenfelz, Anders Beynon, John Connor, Saxon Deckelbaum, Dan L Dejong, Cornelis H Earnshaw, Jonathan J Kyamanywa, Patrick Perez, Rodrigo O Sakai, Yoshiharu and Winter, Desmond C 2013. Strategies to improve clinical research in surgery through international collaboration. The Lancet, Vol. 382, Issue. 9898, p. 1140.

    Campbell, Bruce Morris, Rebekah Mandava, Lakshmi Murthy, Lakshmi Gallo, Helen Ong, Koh Jun Latif, Ali and Patrick, Hannah 2014. IDENTIFYING AND SELECTING NEW PROCEDURES FOR HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT: A DECADE OF NICE EXPERIENCE IN THE UNITED KINGDOM. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, Vol. 30, Issue. 04, p. 454.

  • International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, Volume 26, Issue 1
  • January 2010, pp. 102-109

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

  • Jonathan Plumb (a1), Georgios Lyratzopoulos (a2), Helen Gallo (a1) and Bruce Campbell (a3)
  • DOI:
  • Published online: 08 January 2010

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.

Linked references
Hide All

This list contains references from the content that can be linked to their source. For a full set of references and notes please see the PDF or HTML where available.

4.B Campbell , H Patrick , S Barnes , M Marlow . How should accredited specialists be trained to do new procedures? Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2009;91:9194.

8. G Lyratzopoulos , H Patrick , B Campbell . Registers needed for new interventional procedures. Lancet. 2008;371:17341736.

28.CB Wilson . Adoption of new surgical technology. BMJ. 2006;332:112114.

Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care
  • ISSN: 0266-4623
  • EISSN: 1471-6348
  • URL: /core/journals/international-journal-of-technology-assessment-in-health-care
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *


Type Description Title
Supplementary Materials

Plumb et al,. supplementary material
Table 1

 Unknown (39 KB)
39 KB