MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4214772679 · doi:10.1115/1.4053928

Generating Appropriate and Reliable Evidence for Value Assessment of Medical Devices: An ISPOR Medical Devices and Diagnostics Special Interest Group Report

2022· article· en· W4214772679 on OpenAlexaff
Nneka C. Onwudiwe, Richard A. Charter, Bruce Gingles, Payam Abrishami, Henry Alder, Ameet Bahkai, Diane Civic, Melodi Koşaner Kließ, Chantale Lessard, Carla L. Zema

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Medical Devices · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
Canadian institutionsMontfort Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHealth technologyHealth careManagement scienceValue (mathematics)Best practiceComputer scienceRisk analysis (engineering)Knowledge managementMedicineProcess managementEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Health technology assessment (HTA) methods have become an important health policy tool to assess value. Yet recommendations for what constitutes appropriate and reliable evidence and methodologies for assessment of medical devices are still debated because methods to evaluate pharmaceuticals are often, and incorrectly, the starting points for device assessments. The study aims to: (i) propose recommendations on appropriate methodologies to assess the evidence on medical devices, (ii) identify assessment methods that can be used to measure device value, and (iii) suggest key areas for future work. ISPOR's Medical Devices and Diagnostics Special Interest Group conducted a comprehensive search of databases and gray literature on evidence development and value assessment on medical devices. The literature search was supplemented with hand searching from high impact journals in the related field. The ten-person expert working group obtained written comments through multiple rounds of review from internal and external stakeholders. Recommendations were made to encourage and guide future research. Multicriteria decision analysis was identified as a useful approach to assess the value of treatment. Consideration should be given to resource-use measures; valid and reliable functional status questionnaires; and general and disease-specific, health-related, quality-of-life measures in economic evaluations of device use. For future work, best practices for value framework design should take into consideration those factors that influence the value of medical devices. Integration of value-based evidence data in an evidence-generation and -synthesis process is needed to support market access and adoption decisions. Methodological recommendations for measuring value can be challenging when the selection of domains and assessment of value are not device-specific.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.415
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.530
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.585
Threshold uncertainty score0.721

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.4150.530
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.007
Bibliometrics0.0230.015
Science and technology studies0.0030.004
Scholarly communication0.0180.009
Open science0.0040.011
Research integrity0.0090.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.002

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.383
GPT teacher head0.495
Teacher spread0.111 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
DomainMethods
GenreMethods

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Medical DevicesSame topicHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of LifeFrench-language works237,207