1
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Research gaps identified in Iran’s health technology assessment reports

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Introduction

          Identifying gaps in the evidence is a useful byproduct of conducting a health technology assessment (HTA). This study aims to identify research gaps in Iran’s HTA reports.

          Method

          We reviewed the HTA reports published between 2014 and 2016. Then, we developed two separate questionnaires for principal investigators (PIs) and independent HTA researchers. The questionnaire for independent HTA researchers consisted of four main parts. However, the PIs’ questionnaire consisted of two main parts. We also conducted a literature search in the PubMed database in November 2017 to find frameworks for prioritizing research gaps. We also conducted a semi-structured interview with the head of the Iran’s HTA Office at that time and sought feedback based on his expert opinion about questionnaires, the priority-setting tool and our process for extracting research gaps.

          Results

          A total of 11 HTA reports published between 2014 and 2016 by Iran’s HTA Office were selected for the study. Of these 11 reports, 5 involved technologies related to medical equipment, while 6 involved medical and surgical interventions. Assessing the outcomes of technology use in various indications and updating HTAs when new evidence arises; evaluating the viewpoints of patients, clinicians and key technology users; conducting post-marketing evaluations of technology; comparing the impact of the technology in question to other treatments for the same condition; and requesting long-term clinical and cost–effectiveness data for technologies with limited follow-up periods were identified as the main gaps by independent HTA researchers and PIs.

          Conclusions

          The research gaps identified from Iran’s HTAs could be utilized by research funding agencies.

          Related collections

          Most cited references16

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          The development of a critical appraisal tool for use in systematic reviews addressing questions of prevalence.

          Recently there has been a significant increase in the number of systematic reviews addressing questions of prevalence. Key features of a systematic review include the creation of an a priori protocol, clear inclusion criteria, a structured and systematic search process, critical appraisal of studies, and a formal process of data extraction followed by methods to synthesize, or combine, this data. Currently there exists no standard method for conducting critical appraisal of studies in systematic reviews of prevalence data.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            SUPPORT Tools for evidence-informed health Policymaking (STP) 1: What is evidence-informed policymaking?

            This article is part of a series written for people responsible for making decisions about health policies and programmes and for those who support these decision makers. In this article, we discuss the following three questions: What is evidence? What is the role of research evidence in informing health policy decisions? What is evidence-informed policymaking? Evidence-informed health policymaking is an approach to policy decisions that aims to ensure that decision making is well-informed by the best available research evidence. It is characterised by the systematic and transparent access to, and appraisal of, evidence as an input into the policymaking process. The overall process of policymaking is not assumed to be systematic and transparent. However, within the overall process of policymaking, systematic processes are used to ensure that relevant research is identified, appraised and used appropriately. These processes are transparent in order to ensure that others can examine what research evidence was used to inform policy decisions, as well as the judgements made about the evidence and its implications. Evidence-informed policymaking helps policymakers gain an understanding of these processes.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Evaluation of the Endorsement of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) Statement on the Quality of Published Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses

              Introduction PRISMA statement was published in 2009 in order to set standards in the reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Our aim was to evaluate the impact of PRISMA endorsement on the quality of reporting and methodological quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses, published in journals in the field of gastroenterology and hepatology (GH). Methods Quality of reporting and methodological quality were evaluated by assessing the adherence of papers to PRISMA checklist and AMSTAR quality scale. After identifying the GH journals which endorsed PRISMA in instructions for authors (IA), we appraised: 15 papers published in 2012 explicitly mentioning PRISMA in the full text (Group A); 15 papers from the same journals published in 2012 not explicitly mentioning PRISMA in the full text (Group B); 30 papers published the year preceding PRISMA endorsement from the same journals as above (Group C); 30 papers published in 2012 on the 10 highest impact factor journals in GH which not endorsed PRISMA (Group D). Results PRISMA statement was referred in the IA in 9 out of 70 GH journals (12.9%). We found significant increase in overall adherence to PRISMA checklist (Group A, 90.1%; Group C, 83.1%; p = 0.003) and compliance to AMSTAR scale (Group A, 85.0%; Group C, 74.6%; p = 0.002), following the PRISMA endorsement from the nine GH journals. Explicit referencing of PRISMA in manuscript was not associated with increase in quality of reporting and methodological quality (Group A vs. B, p = 0.651, p = 0.900, respectively). Adherence to PRISMA checklist, and the compliance with AMSTAR were significantly higher in journals endorsing PRISMA compared to those not (Groups A+B vs. D; p = 0.003 and p = 0.016, respectively). Conclusion The endorsement of PRISMA resulted in increase of both quality of reporting and methodological quality. It is advised that an increasing number of medical journals include PRISMA in the instructions for authors.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                f-mohtsham@farabi.tums.ac.ir
                Journal
                Health Res Policy Syst
                Health Res Policy Syst
                Health Research Policy and Systems
                BioMed Central (London )
                1478-4505
                11 December 2023
                11 December 2023
                2023
                : 21
                : 132
                Affiliations
                [1 ]GRID grid.411705.6, ISNI 0000 0001 0166 0922, Knowledge Utilization Research Centre (KURC), , Tehran University of Medical Sciences, ; Kargar St., Keshavarz Blvd, P.O. Box 1417993357, Tehran, Iran
                [2 ]National Institute for Health Research, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, ( https://ror.org/01c4pz451) Tehran, Iran
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4720-4345
                Article
                1043
                10.1186/s12961-023-01043-0
                10714446
                38082442
                08507e73-24b6-4937-9554-c76938f3bcad
                © The Author(s) 2023

                Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

                History
                : 19 August 2022
                : 19 August 2023
                Funding
                Funded by: Tehran University of Medical Sciences’ Deputy of Research
                Award ID: 95-04-102-33884
                Award Recipient :
                Categories
                Research
                Custom metadata
                © BioMed Central Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2023

                Health & Social care
                technology assessment,biomedical,research,iran
                Health & Social care
                technology assessment, biomedical, research, iran

                Comments

                Comment on this article