Peer Review and Transparency in Evidence-Source Selection in Value and Health Technology Assessment.


Journal

Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research
ISSN: 1524-4733
Titre abrégé: Value Health
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 100883818

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
06 2020
Historique:
received: 07 07 2019
revised: 02 01 2020
accepted: 20 01 2020
entrez: 17 6 2020
pubmed: 17 6 2020
medline: 4 9 2020
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

Value and health technology assessment (V/HTA) is often used in clinical, access, and reimbursement decisions. V/HTA data-source selection may not be transparent, which is a necessary element for stakeholder understanding and trust and for fostering accountability among decision makers. Peer review is considered one mechanism for judging data trustworthiness. Our objective was (1) to use publicly available documentation of V/HTA methods to identify requirements for inclusion of peer-reviewed evidence sources, (2) to compare and contrast US and non-US approaches, and (3) to assess evidence sources used in published V/HTA reports. Publicly available methods documentation from 11 V/HTA organizations in North America and Europe were manually searched and abstracted for descriptions of requirements and recommendations regarding search strategy and evidence-source selection. The bibliographies of a subset of V/HTA reports published in 2018 were manually abstracted for evidence-source types used in each. Heterogeneity in evidence-source retrieval and selection was observed across all V/HTA organizations, with more pronounced differences between US and non-US organizations. Not all documentation of organizations' methods address the evidence-source selection processes (7 of 11), and few explicitly reference peer-reviewed sources (3 of 11). Documentation of the evidence-source selection strategy was inconsistent across reports (6 of 13), and the level of detail provided varied across organizations. Some information on evidence-source selection was often included in confidential documentation and was not publicly available. Disparities exist among V/HTA organizations in requirements and guidance regarding evidence-source selection. Standardization of evidence-source selection strategies and documentation could help improve V/HTA transparency and has implications for decision making based on report findings.

Identifiants

pubmed: 32540225
pii: S1098-3015(20)30090-5
doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2020.01.014
pii:
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

689-696

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2020 ISPOR–The Professional Society for Health Economics and Outcomes Research. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Auteurs

Bansri Desai (B)

University of Maryland, School of Pharmacy, Baltimore, MD, USA. Electronic address: bdesai@umaryland.edu.

T Joseph Mattingly (TJ)

University of Maryland, School of Pharmacy, Baltimore, MD, USA.

Remon W M van den Broek (RWM)

Excerpta Medica, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

Ngan Pham (N)

University of Maryland, School of Pharmacy, Baltimore, MD, USA.

Megan Frailer (M)

University of Maryland, School of Pharmacy, Baltimore, MD, USA.

Joseph Yang (J)

University of Maryland, School of Pharmacy, Baltimore, MD, USA.

Eleanor M Perfetto (EM)

University of Maryland, School of Pharmacy, Baltimore, MD, USA; National Health Council, Washington, DC, USA.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH