Skip to main content Accesibility Help
×
×
Home

HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT METHODS GUIDELINES FOR MEDICAL DEVICES: HOW CAN WE ADDRESS THE GAPS? THE INTERNATIONAL FEDERATION OF MEDICAL AND BIOLOGICAL ENGINEERING PERSPECTIVE

  • Julie Polisena (a1), Rossana Castaldo (a2), Oriana Ciani (a3), Carlo Federici (a4), Simone Borsci (a5), Matteo Ritrovato (a6), Daniel Clark (a7) and Leandro Pecchia (a8)...
Abstract
Objectives:

Current health technology assessment (HTA) methods guidelines for medical devices may benefit from contributions by biomedical and clinical engineers. Our study aims to: (i) review and identify gaps in the current HTA guidelines on medical devices, (ii) propose recommendations to optimize the impact of HTA for medical devices, and (iii) reach a consensus among biomedical engineers on these recommendations.

Methods:

A gray literature search of HTA agency Web sites for assessment methods guidelines on devices was conducted. The International Federation of Medical and Biological Engineers (IFMBE) then convened a structured focus group, with experts from different fields, to identify potential gaps in the current HTA guidelines, and to develop recommendations to fill these perceived gaps. The thirty recommendations generated from the focus group were circulated in a Delphi survey to eighty-five biomedical and clinical engineers.

Results:

Thirty-two panelists, from seventeen countries, participated in the Delphi survey. The responses showed a strong agreement on twenty-seven of thirty recommendations. Some uncertainties remain about the methods to accurately assess the effectiveness and safety, and interoperability of a medical device with other devices or within the clinical setting.

Conclusions:

As medical devices differ from drug therapies, current HTA methods may not accurately reflect the conclusions of their assessment. Recommendations informed by the focus group discussions and Delphi survey responses aimed to address the perceived gaps, and to provide a more integrated approach in medical device assessments in combining engineering with other perspectives, such as clinical, economic, patient, human factors, ethical, and environmental.

  • View HTML
    • 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.

      HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT METHODS GUIDELINES FOR MEDICAL DEVICES: HOW CAN WE ADDRESS THE GAPS? THE INTERNATIONAL FEDERATION OF MEDICAL AND BIOLOGICAL ENGINEERING PERSPECTIVE
      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.

      HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT METHODS GUIDELINES FOR MEDICAL DEVICES: HOW CAN WE ADDRESS THE GAPS? THE INTERNATIONAL FEDERATION OF MEDICAL AND BIOLOGICAL ENGINEERING PERSPECTIVE
      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.

      HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT METHODS GUIDELINES FOR MEDICAL DEVICES: HOW CAN WE ADDRESS THE GAPS? THE INTERNATIONAL FEDERATION OF MEDICAL AND BIOLOGICAL ENGINEERING PERSPECTIVE
      Available formats
      ×
Copyright
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
References
Hide All
1.World Health Organization. Global atlas of medical devices [Internet]. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2017. 480 p. [cited September 18, 2017]. (WHO Medical device technical series). http://www.who.int/medical_devices/publications/global_atlas_meddev2017/en/ (accessed May 9, 2018).
2.Regulation (EU) 2017/745 of the European Parliament and for the council of 5 April 2017 on medical devices, amending directive 2001/83/EC, regulation (EC) No 178/2002 and regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 and repealing council directives 90/385/EEC and 93/42/EEC [Internet]. Council of the European Union; 2017 May 5. 175 p. [cited September 18, 2017]. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/ENG/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32017R0745&from=EN (accessed May 9, 2018).
3.Maisel, WH. Medical device regulation: An introduction for the practicing physician. Ann Intern Med. 2004;140:296302.
4.Pecchia, L, Craven, MP. Early stage health technology assessment (HTA) of biomedical devices: The MATCH experience [Internet]. In: Long, M, editor. World Congress on Medical Physics and Biomedical Engineering, May 26–31, 2012, Beijing, China. Berlin: Springer; 2012 [cited December 12, 2016]. (IFMBE proceedings). http://eprints.nottingham.ac.uk/1643/1/Pecchia_L._Early_Stage_HTA_of_Biomedical_Devices_with_ref_added.pdf (accessed May 9, 2018)
5.Ciani, O, Wilcher, B, Blankart, CR, et al. Health technology assessment of medical devices: A survey of non-European union agencies. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2015;31:154165.
6.National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Diagnostics Assessment Programme manual [Internet]. Manchester (UK): The Institute; 2011 Dec. [cited December 11, 2013]. https://www.nice.org.uk/Media/Default/About/what-we-do/NICE-guidance/NICE-diagnostics-guidance/Diagnostics-assessment-programme-manual.pdf
7.Medical technologies evaluation programme: Methods guide [Internet]. London: National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence; 2011 Apr. [cited June 20, 2017]. https://www.nice.org.uk/Media/Default/About/what-we-do/NICE-guidance/NICE-medical-technologies/Medical-technologies-evaluation-programme-methods-guide.pdf (accessed May 9, 2018).
8.Therapeutic medical devices: Guideline [Internet]. Diemen (NL): EUnetHTA; 2015 Nov. [cited June 20, 2017]. http://www.eunethta.eu/sites/default/files/sites/5026.fedimbo.belgium.be/files/Therapeutic%20medical%20devices_Guideline_Final%20Nov%202015.pdf (accessed May 9, 2018).
9.Technical guidelines for preparing assessment reports for the Medical Services Advisory Committee – medical service type: Therapeutic [Internet]. Canberra (ACT): Australian Government; 2016 Mar. [cited June 20, 2017]. http://www.msac.gov.au/internet/msac/publishing.nsf/Content/0BD63667C984FEEACA25801000123AD8/$File/TherapeuticTechnicalGuidelines-Final-March2016-Version2.0-accessible.pdf (accessed May 9, 2018)
10.Health technology assessment [Internet]. Toronto: Health Quality Ontario; 2017. [cited June 20, 2017]. http://www.hqontario.ca/Evidence-to-Improve-Care/Health-Technology-Assessment (accessed May 9, 2018).
11.Tarricone, R, Torbica, A, Drummond, M, MedtecHTA Project Group. Key Recommendations from the MedtecHTA Project. Health Econ. 2017;26(Suppl 1):145152.
12.Schnell-Inderst, P, Hunger, T, Conrads-Frank, A, Arvandi, M, Siebert, U. Ten recommendations for assessing the comparative effectiveness of therapeutic medical devices: A targeted review and adaptation. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;94:97113.
13.Human resources for medical devices, the role of biomedical engineers [Internet]. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2017. [cited June 7, 2017]. (WHO medical device technical series). http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/255261/1/9789241565479-eng.pdf?ua=1 (accessed May 9, 2018).
14.Banken, R, Muelle, D, Holmes, E. Role of biomedical engineers in health technology assessment [Internet]. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2013. [cited December 12, 2016]. http://www.who.int/medical_devices/global_forum/Workshop_24_BME_Human_Resources_1.pdf?ua=1 (accessed May 9, 2018).
15.Summer school on health technology assessment (HTA) [Internet]. Coventry (GB): Warwick School of Engineering; 2016. [cited December 12, 2016]. http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/sci/eng/research/grouplist/biomedicaleng/abspie/hta/ (accessed May 9, 2018).
16.Margotti, AE, Santos, F, Garcia, R. Decision making process to incorporate medical equipment in hospital: Clinical engineering perception [Internet]. In: Long M, editor. World Congress on Medical Physics and Biomedical Engineering, May 26–31, Beijing, China. Berlin: Springer; 2013 [cited December 12, 2016]. (IFMBE proceedings).
17.Pecchia, L. Health technology assessment in medical devices in low and middle income countries: Study design and preliminary results. In: EMBEC & NBC, June 11–15, Tampere, Finland: Springer; 2017;65:225-8. (IFMBE Proceedings)
18.Pilot study on Health Technology Assessment (HTA) of medical devices, with a specific focus on low and middle income countries (LMIC). [Internet]. Coventry (GB): University of Warwick; 2017. [cited July 6, 2017]. http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/sci/eng/research/grouplist/biomedicaleng/abspie/projects/pilot_study_on/ (accessed May 9, 2018).
19.IFMBE [Internet]. Taiwan: IFMBE Health Technology Assessment Division. 2017 [cited July 6, 2017]. http://htad.ifmbe.org/ (accessed May 9, 2018).
20.Hsu, C, Sandford, BA. The Delphi technique: Making sense of consensus. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation [Internet]. 2007 Aug [cited 2016 November 30, 2016];12(10). http://pareonline.net/pdf/v12n10.pdf
21.Okoli, C, Pawlowski, SD. The Delphi method as a research tool: An example, design considerations and applications. Inf Manage. 2004;42:1529.
22.Thangaratinam, S, Redman, C. The Delphi technique. Obstet Gynaecol. 2005;7:120125.
23.Kelly, SE, Moher, D, Clifford, TJ. Defining rapid reviews: A modified Delphi consensus approach. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2016;32:265275.
24.Lingg, M, Wyss, K, Duran-Arenas, L. Effects of procurement practices on quality of medical device or service received: A qualitative study comparing countries. BMC Health Serv Res. 2016;16:362.
25.Callea, G, Armeni, P, Marsilio, M, Jommi, C, Tarricone, R. The impact of HTA and procurement practices on the selection and prices of medical devices. Soc Sci Med. 2017;174:8995.
26.Akpinar, I, Jacobs, P, Husereau, D. Medical device prices in economic evaluations. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2015;20:14.
27.Drummond, M, Griffin, A, Tarricone, R. Economic evaluation for devices and drugs--same or different? Value Health. 2009;12:402404.
28.Taylor, RS, Iglesias, CP. Assessing the clinical and cost-effectiveness of medical devices and drugs: Are they that different? Value Health. 2009;12:404406.
29.Sorenson, C, Tarricone, R, Siebert, M, Drummond, M. Applying health economics for policy decision making: Do devices differ from drugs? Europace. 2011;13(Suppl 2):ii54ii58.
30.Sherman, RE, Anderson, SA, Dal Pan, GJ, et al. Real-world evidence - What is it and what can it tell us? N Engl J Med. 2016;375:22932297.
31.MedtecHTA. Methods for health technology assessment of medical devices: A European perspective [Internet]. Milan, Italy: Centre for Research on Health and Social Care Management (CERGAS); 2013. [cited November 21, 2014]. http://www.medtechta.eu/wps/wcm/connect/710e78e7-54b0-4d1c-ab06-f62035fe3f59/MedtecHTA_brochure_def.pdf?MOD=AJPERES (accessed May 9, 2018).
32.U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Silver Spring, MD: U.S. Food and Drug Administration; 2012 [March 27, 2012]. Medical Device Epidemiology Network (MDEpiNET); 2014 Apr 22 [cited January 2, 2014]. http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/FDATrack/track-proj?program=cdrh&id=CDRH-OSB-MDEpiNet (accessed May 9, 2018).
33.Sedrakyan, A, Campbell, B, Merino, JG, et al. IDEAL-D: A rational framework for evaluating and regulating the use of medical devices. BMJ. 2016;353:i2372.
34.Ramsay, CR, Grant, AM, Wallace, SA, et al. Statistical assessment of the learning curves of health technologies. Health Technol Assess. 2001;5:179.
35.Borsci, S, Uchegbu, I, Buckle, P, et al. Designing medical technology for resilience: Integrating health economics and human factors approaches. Expert Rev Med Devices. 2018 Jan 15:1526.
36.Prada, G. Value-based procurement: Canada's healthcare imperative. Healthc Manage Forum. 2016;29:162164.
37.ISO 9241-11:1998. Ergonomic requirements for office work with visual display terminals (VDTs) -- part 11: Guidance on usability. Geneva: International Standards Organization; 1998 March.
38.ISO 9241-210:2010. Ergonomics of human-system interaction -- part 210: Human-centred design for interactive systems. Geneva: International Standards Organization; 2010 March.
39.IEC/TR 80002-1:2009. Medical device software -- part 1: Guidance on the application of ISO 14971 to medical device software. Geneva: International Standards Organization; 2009.
40.IEC 60601-1-2,2001: New EMC requirements for medical equipment. IEEE Xplore®; 2011.
41.International Electrotechnical Commission [Internet]. Geneva: International Electrotechnical Commission. 2017 [cited June 20, 2017]. http://www.iec.ch/ (accessed May 10, 2018).
42.International Standards Organization [Internet]. Geneva: International Standards Organization. 2017 [cited June 20, 2017]. https://www.iso.org/home.html (accessed May 10, 2018).
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? *
×

Keywords

Type Description Title
WORD
Supplementary materials

Polisena et al. supplementary material
Polisena et al. supplementary material 1

 Word (41 KB)
41 KB

Metrics

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed