Article type
Year
Abstract
Background: Health Technology Assessment (HTA) agencies are facing the common problem of providing high quality assessment of medical technologies in a timely manner to support the needs of decision makers. The Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health's (CADTH) Health Technology Inquiry Service (HTIS) offers quick access to HTA information.
Objectives: We would like to discuss our experience in conducting a systematic review of a diagnostic intervention in a shorter timeframe.
Methods: 'Portable Ultrasound Devices in Emergency Departments' was performed for HTIS in a five-month time-frame. A systematic review approach was adopted throughout the assessment. The research questions were related to clinical effectiveness, training, and ethical/legal issues of portable ultrasound devices used in the emergency department by non-radiologists. Meta-analysis was performed where appropriate.
Results: Forty-nine articles containing clinical trials, clinical practice guidelines and systematic reviews were reviewed, and the quality of 29 clinical trials was independently critically appraised by two researchers. Diagnostic accuracy outcomes were pooled to illustrate the overall effects of these devices in emergency departments for three common conditions. We encountered several challenges, such as meeting timelines, determining the depth of the report (i.e. decision to conduct a meta-analysis, performing quality assessment), and determining responsibilities of research team members. The draft assessment was peer reviewed by four external experts. This review was completed in less than five months.
Conclusions: By using a systematic approach during searching for and selecting evidence, we believe it is as rigorous as possible, given the time constraints. However, the scope, scientific rigour, peer review and medical editing were not as comprehensive as in a regular CADTH review, leading to a shorter time period for its completion. In order to meet this timeline, dedicated staff resources are required.
Objectives: We would like to discuss our experience in conducting a systematic review of a diagnostic intervention in a shorter timeframe.
Methods: 'Portable Ultrasound Devices in Emergency Departments' was performed for HTIS in a five-month time-frame. A systematic review approach was adopted throughout the assessment. The research questions were related to clinical effectiveness, training, and ethical/legal issues of portable ultrasound devices used in the emergency department by non-radiologists. Meta-analysis was performed where appropriate.
Results: Forty-nine articles containing clinical trials, clinical practice guidelines and systematic reviews were reviewed, and the quality of 29 clinical trials was independently critically appraised by two researchers. Diagnostic accuracy outcomes were pooled to illustrate the overall effects of these devices in emergency departments for three common conditions. We encountered several challenges, such as meeting timelines, determining the depth of the report (i.e. decision to conduct a meta-analysis, performing quality assessment), and determining responsibilities of research team members. The draft assessment was peer reviewed by four external experts. This review was completed in less than five months.
Conclusions: By using a systematic approach during searching for and selecting evidence, we believe it is as rigorous as possible, given the time constraints. However, the scope, scientific rigour, peer review and medical editing were not as comprehensive as in a regular CADTH review, leading to a shorter time period for its completion. In order to meet this timeline, dedicated staff resources are required.