Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T17:30:26.823Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Validity of original studies in health technology assessment reports: Significance of standardized assessment and reporting

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 August 2005

Franz Porzsolt ,
Hana Kajnar ,
Aziz Awa ,
Margrit Fässler  and
Barbara Herzberger
Franz Porzsolt
Affiliation:
University Hospital Ulm
Hana Kajnar
Affiliation:
Ludwig-Maximilian University Staedtisches Krankenhaus Sindelfingen
Aziz Awa
Affiliation:
Ludwig-Maximilian University
Margrit Fässler
Affiliation:
Ludwig-Maximilian University Georg-August University
Barbara Herzberger
Affiliation:
Ludwig-Maximilian University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objectives: As health technology assessments (HTA) may have considerable impact on health-care decisions, it is essential to guarantee the expected quality of these assessments. Variations in the methods used or lack of transparency can affect the important role of HTA reports.

Methods: In our study, we analyzed the methods used in two corresponding HTA reports to assess the validity of two key papers, which were included in both reports. Also the discussions and the final conclusions of both reports were compared.

Results: The authors of the two HTA reports used different instruments to assess the validity of the original studies. A minor problem is differences that were found in the assessments of identical validity aspects of the included studies and in the information provided in the HTA reports. A more serious problem was found in both HTA reports which identified the weakness of the key papers and expressed these limitations in the discussions (read mainly by scientists) but not in the conclusions (read mainly by policy-makers).

Conclusions: The results of this study may be important for any institution that prepares recommendations for policy-makers. In the case of HTA reports, no new checklists are necessary as the checklist offered by the INAHTA contains the needed information. It may be necessary, however, to consider an “intramural quality board,” which helps the member organizations guarantee both the transparency of the original studies included in HTA reports and the transparency of the HTA report itself.

Keywords

Standards for assessmentStandards for reportingTransparencyValidity of original studies
Type
RESEARCH REPORTS
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 21 , Issue 3 , July 2005 , pp. 410 - 413
Copyright
© 2005 Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Fried M, Shiffman M, Reddy R, et al. 2002 Peginterferon alfa-2a plus ribavirin for chronic hepatitis C virus infection. N Engl J Med. 347: 975– 982.Google Scholar
Guyatt GH, Sackett DL, Cook DJ. 1994 Users' guides to the medical literature. II. How to use an article about therapy or prevention. B. What were the results and will they help me in caring for my patients? Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group. JAMA. 271: 59– 63.Google Scholar
Jadad A, Moore A, Carroll D, et al. 1996 Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: Is blinding necessary? Control Clin Trials. 17: 1– 12.Google Scholar
Manns MP, McHutchison J, Gordon S, et al. 2001 Peginterferon alfa-2b plus ribavirin compared for initial treatment of chronic hepatitis C: A randomised trial. Lancet. 358: 958– 965.Google Scholar
Sackett DL, Straus SE, Richardson WS, Rosenberg W, Haynes RB. 2000. Evidence-based medicine, how to practice and teach EBM, 2nd ed. Toronto: Churchill Livingstone;
The British HTA Report commissioned by NICE contains three separate components (separate papers): Shepherd J, Waugh N, Hewitson P. 2000 Combination therapy (interferon alfa and ribavirin) in the treatment of chronic hepatitis C: a rap id and systematic review. Health Technol Assess. 4: 1– 67.Google Scholar
Technology Appraisal Guidance 75. 2004 Interferon alfa (pegylated and non-pegylated) and ribavirin for the treatment for chronic hepatitis C (review and extension of Technology Appraisal Guidance No. 14 issued 2000). London: the National Institute for Clinical Excellence; January Shepherd J, Brodin H, Cave C, et al. (Southampton Health Technology Assessment Centre, Wessex Institute for Health Research and Development). Pegylated interferon alpha 2a and 2b in combination with ribavirin in the treatment of chronic hepatitis C: A systematic review. Technology assessment report commissioned by the HTA Programme on behalf of The National Institute for Clinical Excellence. London: NICE; 2003.
Siebert U, Sroczynski G. 2003 Antivirale Therapie bei Patienten mit chronischer Hepatitis C in Deutschland. Medizinische und ökonomische Evaluation der initialen Kombinationstherapie mit Interferon/Peginterferon und Ribavirin; Vol 8. DAHTA @ DIMDI;
Silberman G. 1993 Cancer Palliation: Economic and societal implications. Cancer Treat Rev. 19 (Suppl A): 97– 102.Google Scholar
Verhagen A, de Vet H, de Bie R, et al. 1998 The Delphi List: A criteria list for quality assessment of randomized clinical trials for conducting systematic reviews developed by Delphi consensus. J Clin Epidemiol. 51: 1235– 1241.Google Scholar