Health Technology Assessment for COVID19: an approach for the Horizon Scanning of health innovations
Cadeddu C., Ruggeri M., Roazzi P., Mandolini D., Grigioni M., Marchetti M.
Laboratory Study, published in Eur J Public Health (2021) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.
Evidence from laboratory and animal studies provides groundwork for understanding mechanisms and potential before human studies continue.
- Level A · Stronger Clinical Evidence
- Level B · Emerging clinical evidence with positive signals
- Level C · Early human research exploring benefits
- Level D · Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studies
- Emerging · Emerging topic under active research
This page is generated from the PubMed record. The Thai description is an automated summary of bibliographic fields and the abstract, not a full translation, and is not medical advice.
- Study type
- Laboratory Study
- Journal
- Eur J Public Health (2021)
- Reported sample size
- —
- Source database
- Europe PMC
- PMCID
- PMC8574559
Abstract (original English)
Abstract Background The COVID-19 pandemic definitely changed the approach to technologies evaluation, firstly in terms of timeliness. In order to answer to this need, a new methodology was proposed, joining the elements of horizon scanning with the Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA). In this work we describe the results of 2 case studies of application. Methods By means of an assessment matrix, a multidisciplinary expert panel gave a score based on a Likert scale and related to potential value and perceived risk for each technology. Economic, clinical and ethical criteria were considered as a summary of Health Technology Assessment (HTA) main domains. The final scores were then weighted by the MCDA and a scatter plot defined 4 positioning scenarios according to the balance of values and risks resulted, each conducting to an appropriate recommendation (full HTA report or reject). A Monte Carlo simulation was also carried out for the assessment of variability of results. Results An individual protection device for COVID-19 and a contact tracing app were assessed. The first technology was placed in the “Danger Zone” of the graph, because of its high costs and organizational complexity. The second one was placed in the “Comfort Zone” of the graph, due to low costs and easiness of implementation and management. For this innovation a recommendation for a full HTA and a pilot tes
What this study does not prove
- • This study does not prove SVF is an approved treatment or a replacement for standard care.
- • This is preclinical work; animal or laboratory results cannot be applied to humans.
Evidence level
Evidence from laboratory and animal studies provides groundwork for understanding mechanisms and potential before human studies continue.
How we grade evidenceBrowse all related research
Filter the research library by this study's title keywords, author, or publication year.