Article type
Year
Abstract
Background: We realized that the tools used for preparing health technology assessments (HTA) vary between research groups.
Objectives: To investigate these methodological differences and possible differences in the final message we compared the analysis of the key papers and the final messages of the HTA report on the antiviral therapy of hepatitis C prepared on behalf of the Deutsches Institut fuer Medizinische Dokumentation und Information (DIMDI) and the UK National Institute of Clinical Excellence (NICE).
Methods: First, the key papers which provided the essential information for the HTA reports were identified. Second, the items used to assess the quality of the key papers were compared. Third, the influence of the assessment results on the final conclusions of the HTA reports were described. Results: Both HTA reports were based on the same two key papers published by Manns et al. and Fried et al. Due to limited space Table 1 shows the items used to assess the quality only of the paper by Manns et. al. Our own assessments are underlined. The final statements of both reports favor the new treatment regimen without mentioning the methodological weaknesses of the analysis.
Conclusions: Despite the expected methodological variation we did not expect the enormous variation in the individual study assessments. There is a considerable need for intensive discussions and better standardization. The lack of reporting essential findings in the final conclusions indicates the need to improve primarily the attitudes towards transparent reporting in addition to the improvement of skills and knowledge. As standardized procedure we suggest to check the criteria of Transparency, Applicability and Consistency (TAC criteria) throughout the paper.
References: 1. Sackett DL., Straus SE, Richardson WS, Rosenberg W, Haynes RB. Evidence-based medicine, how to practice and teach EBM, 2nd ed. Edinburgh, London, New York, Philadelphia, St. Louis, Sydney, Toronto: Churchill Livingstone; 2000.
Objectives: To investigate these methodological differences and possible differences in the final message we compared the analysis of the key papers and the final messages of the HTA report on the antiviral therapy of hepatitis C prepared on behalf of the Deutsches Institut fuer Medizinische Dokumentation und Information (DIMDI) and the UK National Institute of Clinical Excellence (NICE).
Methods: First, the key papers which provided the essential information for the HTA reports were identified. Second, the items used to assess the quality of the key papers were compared. Third, the influence of the assessment results on the final conclusions of the HTA reports were described. Results: Both HTA reports were based on the same two key papers published by Manns et al. and Fried et al. Due to limited space Table 1 shows the items used to assess the quality only of the paper by Manns et. al. Our own assessments are underlined. The final statements of both reports favor the new treatment regimen without mentioning the methodological weaknesses of the analysis.
Conclusions: Despite the expected methodological variation we did not expect the enormous variation in the individual study assessments. There is a considerable need for intensive discussions and better standardization. The lack of reporting essential findings in the final conclusions indicates the need to improve primarily the attitudes towards transparent reporting in addition to the improvement of skills and knowledge. As standardized procedure we suggest to check the criteria of Transparency, Applicability and Consistency (TAC criteria) throughout the paper.
References: 1. Sackett DL., Straus SE, Richardson WS, Rosenberg W, Haynes RB. Evidence-based medicine, how to practice and teach EBM, 2nd ed. Edinburgh, London, New York, Philadelphia, St. Louis, Sydney, Toronto: Churchill Livingstone; 2000.