Health technology assessment : HTA
-
Health Technol Assess · Jan 2003
Review Meta Analysis Comparative StudyThe clinical and cost-effectiveness of pulsatile machine perfusion versus cold storage of kidneys for transplantation retrieved from heart-beating and non-heart-beating donors.
To evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of machine perfusion (MP) compared to cold storage (CS), as a means of preserving kidneys prior to transplantation. Transplantation of kidneys from both heart-beating donors (HBDs) and non-heart-beating donors (NHBDs) is considered. Finally to review whether the use of MP can allow valid testing of kidney viability prior to transplantation. ⋯ The baseline analysis indicated that in the long-term MP would be expected to be cheaper and more effective than CS for both HBD and NHBD recipients. A definitive study of the clinical benefit of MP in order to establish its effect on DGF and longer term graft survival would be valuable, together with an economic evaluation of the benefits. While direct evidence relating to improvements in graft survival would be preferable, the small predicted improvement indicates that a very large sample size would be required. In addition to seeking direct evidence of the impact on DGF, research quantifying the impact of DGF on graft survival in this technology is required. Research is also needed to establish whether a valid test (or combination of tests) of kidney viability can be developed.
-
Health Technol Assess · Jan 2003
Review Comparative StudyEvaluating non-randomised intervention studies.
To consider methods and related evidence for evaluating bias in non-randomised intervention studies. ⋯ Results of non-randomised studies sometimes, but not always, differ from results of randomised studies of the same intervention. Non-randomised studies may still give seriously misleading results when treated and control groups appear similar in key prognostic factors. Standard methods of case-mix adjustment do not guarantee removal of bias. Residual confounding may be high even when good prognostic data are available, and in some situations adjusted results may appear more biased than unadjusted results. Although many quality assessment tools exist and have been used for appraising non-randomised studies, most omit key quality domains. Healthcare policies based upon non-randomised studies or systematic reviews of non-randomised studies may need re-evaluation if the uncertainty in the true evidence base was not fully appreciated when policies were made. The inability of case-mix adjustment methods to compensate for selection bias and our inability to identify non-randomised studies that are free of selection bias indicate that non-randomised studies should only be undertaken when RCTs are infeasible or unethical. Recommendations for further research include: applying the resampling methodology in other clinical areas to ascertain whether the biases described are typical; developing or refining existing quality assessment tools for non-randomised studies; investigating how quality assessments of non-randomised studies can be incorporated into reviews and the implications of individual quality features for interpretation of a review's results; examination of the reasons for the apparent failure of case-mix adjustment methods; and further evaluation of the role of the propensity score.
-
Health Technol Assess · Jan 2003
Randomized Controlled Trial Multicenter Study Clinical TrialA randomised controlled trial to assess the impact of a package comprising a patient-orientated, evidence-based self-help guidebook and patient-centred consultations on disease management and satisfaction in inflammatory bowel disease.
To determine if a whole systems approach to self-management improves clinical outcomes and leads to cost-effective use of NHS services. ⋯ Further use of this method in chronic disease management seems likely to improve overall patient satisfaction and reduce health expenditure without evidence of adverse effect on disease control. Further attention needs to be given to self-referral and access arrangements and a re-distribution of control to patients through increased adherence to patient-centred norms on the part of consultants. Future research is recommended to evaluate the operating systems within secondary and primary care that would allow self-managers to self-refer and to keep them informed of new treatments, also to explore models for training health professionals in self-care methods, to study long-term effects of self-management in chronic disease and to transfer this approach to other chronic conditions.
-
Health Technol Assess · Jan 2003
Randomized Controlled Trial Clinical TrialA randomised controlled trial to evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of Hickman line insertions in adult cancer patients by nurses.
To examine the clinical and cost-effectiveness of image-guided Hickman line insertions versus blind Hickman line insertions undertaken by nurses in adult cancer patients. ⋯ This report indicates that nurse insertion of Hickman lines in the majority of adult cancer patients is both safe and effective. However, there are a select group of patients for whom image-guided insertion may be preferred. The results reveal that skills and expertise can be transferred from trainer to trainee through a relatively short, but intensive, training course. It is also evident that patients support nurse insertion. Further research is suggested to compare the safety and efficacy of nurse versus doctor insertions in particular subgroups of patients and also to assess the quantity and quality of current service provision in order to inform NHS decision-making in this area.
-
Health Technol Assess · Jan 2003
ReviewLiterature searching for clinical and cost-effectiveness studies used in health technology assessment reports carried out for the National Institute for Clinical Excellence appraisal system.
To contribute to making searching for Technology Assessment Reports (TARs) more cost-effective by suggesting an optimum literature retrieval strategy. ⋯ Searching additional databases beyond the Cochrane Library (which includes CCTR, NHS EED and the HTA database), MEDLINE, EMBASE and SCI, plus BIOSIS limited to meeting abstracts only, was seldom found to be effective in retrieving additional studies for inclusion in the clinical and cost-effectiveness sections of TARs (apart from reviews of cancer therapies, where a search of the ASCO database is recommended). A more selective approach to database searching would suffice in most cases and would save resources, thereby making the TAR process more efficient. However, searching non-database sources (including submissions from manufacturers, recent meeting abstracts, contact with experts and checking reference lists) does appear to be a productive way of identifying further studies.