Notice bibliographique
Résumé
OBJECTIVES: Since 1988, four government-funded health technology assessment (HTA) agencies have been established in Canada. This paper is a descriptive review of reports issued by these organizations during the period from 1988 to 1998. METHODS: Publications from the national and three provincial HTA agencies in Canada were obtained and reviewed. Only the 117 assessment reports that were reported to have undergone external review were included in this analysis. Each report was classified on a standard abstraction form according to criteria such as technology type(s), assessment focus, whether a specific policy question was clearly stated and relevant decision maker(s) identified, description of search strategy and selection criteria, sources of data and assessment methods used, whether recommendations or conclusions were made, and duplication or overlap of reports. The trends in these qualities over the 10-year period were also examined. RESULTS: Therapeutic technologies have received the most attention from all four agencies, although the focus on devices, drugs, and procedures varied between agencies. The policy question under investigation was clearly identified in 82% of reports, and 71% clearly identified the decision maker toward whom the assessment was targeted. Efficacy or effectiveness was examined in 81% of reports, and costs were assessed in 65% of studies. These were the two most frequently examined aspects. Almost all assessments were descriptive literature reviews; 9% included meta-analyses and 32% had cost analyses or economic evaluations. Forty-four percent of reports had a clear description of the literature search strategy, and selection criteria were clearly specified in 38% of studies, but there was considerable variation among agencies in the level of description of these methods. Conclusions were clearly stated in 83% of the assessments' conclusions, and 13% had recommendations. When analyzed longitudinally, it is apparent that the quality of reports has improved markedly during the past decade. This was determined by examining the clarity of specifying the policy question(s) under investigation, the identification of the target audience of decision makers for the information, and by evaluating the thoroughness of the description of the methods used in the assessment. CONCLUSIONS: Canadian government agencies have contributed a considerable quantity of health technology assessments. There has been very little duplication of technologies evaluated, and the quality of the assessment reports has markedly improved during the past decade.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,007 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,003 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».