Sağlık Teknolojisi Değerlendirme Raporlarında Güvenilirlik ve Şeffaflık

Sağlık Teknolojisi Değerlendirmesi STD , sağlık politikası analizinde yardımcı multidisipliner bir alandır. STD’nin tarihçesi 1975’in başlarına uzanmakla beraber, Türkiye’de nisbeten yenidir. Sağlık Teknolojisi Değerlendirmesi Kurumları Uluslararası İletişim Ağı INAHTA , STD’ni “Sağlık teknolojisinin gelişmesi, yaygınlaşması ve kullanımının, tıbbi, sosyal, etik ve ekonomik etkilerini inceler.” şeklinde tanımlanmıştır. Anlaşılabilir ve şeffaf planlama, raporlama süreçleri, STDlerinde önemlidir. Burada, sistematik incelemelerin kalitesinin belirlenmesinde yararlı olan AMSTAR; şeffaf ve eksiksiz raporlanmalarında yazarlara yardımcı olan PRISMA aracı ile STD raporunu okuyan ve gözden geçirenlere başlangıç rehberi olması amacıyla tasarlanmış olan INAHTA değerlendirme listesini inceledik. Bu araçların kullanılmasının, Türkiye’de STD rapor şeffaflığı ile kalitesinin arttırılmasına ve raporların tüm dünyada kabul görür duruma gelmesine katkı sağlayacağı görüşündeyiz

HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT REPORTS-CREDIBILITY AND TRANSPARENCY

Technology assessment in health care is a multidisciplinary field of policy analysis. Although the early history of health technology assessment HTA began around 1975, the field of HTA is relatively new in Turkey. HTA studies the medical, social, ethical, and economic implications of the development, diffusion, and use of health technology, as defined by the International Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment INAHTA . Transparent and clear development processes and reporting are important steps for HTAs. We discussed the AMSTAR instrument-useful for appraising the quality of systematic reviews SRs , the PRISMA tool which helps authors to provide a transparent and complete reporting of SRs, and the INAHTA checklist intended for initial guidance of HTA reviewers and readers. Usage of these tools might help improve the quality of Turkish HTA reports and increase their transparency and acceptance all over the world

Keywords:

health technology assessment, credibility transparency,

PDF

___

Banta D. What is technology assessment? Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2009;25 Suppl 1:7-9. doi: 10.1017/S0266462309090333.

Banta D. The development of health technology assessment. Health Policy 2003;63:121-32. doi: 10.1016/S0168-8510(02)00059-3

Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, The PRISMA Group (2009) Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement PLoS Med 6(6):e1000097. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed1000097

Shea BJ, Grimshaw JM, Wells GA, Boers M, Andersson N, Hamel C et al. Development of AMSTAR: a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol 2007;15;7:10. doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-7-10

Hailey D. Toward transparency in health technology assessment: a checklist for HTA reports. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2003;19:1- 7. doi: 10.1017/S0266462303000011

Porzsolt F, Kajnar H, Awa A, Fässler M, Herzberger B. Validity of original studies in health technology assessment reports: significance of standardized assessment and reporting. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2005;21:410-3. doi: 10.1017/S0266462305050543

Sampson M, McGowan J, Lefebvre C, Moher D, Grimshaw JM. PRESS: peer review of electronic search strategies. CADTH Technical Report 2008

Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D; CONSORT Group. CONSORT 2010 statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomized trials. Ann Intern Med 2010:1;152:726-32. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-152-11-201006010-00232.

Higgins JP, Altman DG, Gİtzsche PC, Jüni P, Moher D, Oxman AD et al. The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ 2011;343 doi: 10.1136/bmj.d5928

Guyatt G, Oxman AD, Akl EA, Kunz R, Vist G, Brozek J et al. GRADE guidelines: 1. Introduction-GRADE evidence profiles and summary of findings tables. J Clin Epidemiol 2011;64:383-94. doi: 10.1016/j. jclinepi. 2010.04.026.

Balshem H, Helfand M, Schünemann HJ, Oxman AD, Kunz R, Brozek J et al. GRADE guidelines: 3. Rating the quality of evidence. J Clin Epidemiol 2011;64:401-6. doi: 10.1016/j. jclinepi. 2010.07.015.

Atkins D, Best D, Briss PA, Eccles M, Falck-Ytter Y, Flottorp S. Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ 2004;19.328(7454):1490. doi:10.1136/bmj.328.7454.1490

Drummond M.,Sculpher M.,Torrance G., O’Brien B., Stoddart G. Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes. 2nd ed. Oxford. Oxford University Press 1997 p.29-44.

Husereau D, Drummond M, Petrou S, Carswell C, Moher D et al. Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS)--explanation and elaboration: a report of the ISPOR Health Economic Evaluation Publication Guidelines Good Reporting Practices Task Force. Value Health 2013;16:231-50. doi:10.1016/j.jval. 2013.02.002.

J Ofman JJ, Sullivan SD, Neumann PJ, Chiou CF, Henning JM, Wade SW et al. Examining the value and quality of health economic analyses: implications of utilizing the QHES. J Manag Care Pharm 2003;9:53-61.

Gillon R. Medical ethics: four principles plus attention to scope. BMJ 1994;16;309:184-8.

Hofmann B. Toward a procedure for integrating moral issues in health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2005;21:312-8.

Hofmann BM. Why ethics should be part of health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2008:24:423-9. doi: 10.1017/S0266462308080550.

Saarni SI, Hofmann B, Lampe K, Lühmann D, Mäkelä M, Velasco- Garrido M et al. Ethical analysis to improve decision-making on health Technologies. Bull World Health Organ 2008;86:617-23.

Saarni SI, Braunack-Mayer A, Hofmann B, van der Wilt GJ. Different methods for ethical analysis in health technology assessment: an empirical study. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2011;27:305-12. doi: 10.1017/S0266462311000444.

Banta D, Jonsson E. History of HTA: Introduction. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 25: Supplement 1 2009:1–6. doi:10.1017/S0266462309090321

Velasco M, Perleth M, Drummond M, Gürtner F, Jİrgensen T, Jovell A et al. Best practice in undertaking and reporting health technology assessments. Working group 4 report. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2002;18:361-422.