Comparison of the assessment of five new interventional procedures in different countries.

摘要: Objectives: The aim of this study was to identify and compare health technology assessments the same new interventional procedures produced in different countries.Methods: We selected five studied related countries.Results: There were twenty (range, 3–5 per procedure) from nine countries—fourteen Australia, Canada, United Kingdom. number primary RCTs cited by ranged 0 13. In assessment reports, “headline” statements about strength evidence for efficacy (73 percent) made more frequently than safety (53 percent). These scored their apparent judgment evidence—1 (poor) 5 (strong)—and received scores 3 or less all but four cases. Recommendations additional research included 55 percent assessments. Statements other aspects use infrequently—in 35 patient selection, 20 consent issues, 15 types clinical teams. appropriate healthcare settings, operator training, only a single organization.Conclusion: small world-wide, range with potentially high impact. Where available, on relatively poor base. International collaboration appraisal review, gathering data through registers, could improve advice available systems worldwide adoption procedures.