Methodological guidelines and publications of benefit-risk assessment for health technology assessment: a scoping review protocol

Nenhuma Miniatura disponível
Citações na Scopus
0
Tipo de produção
article
Data de publicação
2023
DOI
Scopus
Web of Science
PubMed
Dimensions
Título da Revista
ISSN da Revista
Título do Volume
Editora
BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
Autores
GABRIEL, Franciele Cordeiro
JAHN, Beate
SIEBERT, Uwe
Citação
BMJ OPEN, v.13, n.12, article ID e075333, 8p, 2023
Projetos de Pesquisa
Unidades Organizacionais
Fascículo
Resumo
BackgroundBenefit-risk assessment (BRA) is used in multiple phases along the health technology's life-cycle to evaluate the balance between the benefits and risks, as it is fundamental to all stakeholders. BRA and its methodological approaches have been applied primarily in the context of regulatory agencies. However, BRA's application and extent in the context of health technology assessment (HTA) bodies remain less clear. Our goal is to perform a scoping review to identify and map methodological guidelines and publications on methods of BRA. This will be done considering the different phases of the life-cycle of health technologies to underline both the depth and extent of research concerning BRA, especially in the context of HTA. Methods and analysisThis scoping review protocol was developed following the framework proposed by Arksey and O'Malley, and the updated guidelines by the Joanna Briggs Institute. We will include methodological publications that provide recommendations or guidelines on methods for BRA. We will conduct electronic searches on Medline (PubMed) and EMBASE (Ovid) databases; manual searches on the main websites of HTA bodies and drug regulatory organisations; and contact experts in the field. Systematic extraction forms will be used to screen and assess the identified publications by independent assessors. We will provide a qualitative synthesis using descriptive statistics and visual tools. Results will be summarised in systematic evidence tables and comparative evidence scoping charts. Ethics and disseminationThis review will use data publicly available and does not require ethics approval. The results of this scoping review will contribute to scientific knowledge and act as a basis for methodologists, guideline developers and researchers for the development of BRA to inform regulatory decisions, reimbursement and coverage decision making. The results will be disseminated through peer-reviewed articles, conferences, policy briefs and workshops. Trial registration numberOpen Science Framework (https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/69T3V).
Palavras-chave
decision making, public health, statistics & research methods, health policy
URI
https://observatorio.fm.usp.br/handle/OPI/58975
Referências
  1. [Anonymous], 2010, Rev. Saúde Pública, V44, P381
  2. Arksey H., 2005, INT J SOC RES METHOD, V8, P19, DOI [10.1080/1364557032000119616, DOI 10.1080/1364557032000119616]
  3. Berntgen M, 2014, VALUE HEALTH, V17, P634, DOI 10.1016/j.jval.2014.04.006
  4. Bujar M, 2017, FRONT PHARMACOL, V8, DOI 10.3389/fphar.2017.00189
  5. CADTH, 2018, Grey Matters: A Practical Tool for Search Health-Related Grey Literature (Internet)
  6. CADTH, 2022, SR / MA / HTA / ITC-MEDLINE, Embase, PsycInfo
  7. Durán CE, 2021, REV PANAM SALUD PUBL, V45, DOI 10.26633/RPSP.2021.10
  8. European network for Health Technology Assessment (EUnetHTA), 2016, Report on the implementation of the EMA-Eunethta Threeyear work plan 2012-2015
  9. Guo JJ, 2010, VALUE HEALTH, V13, P657, DOI 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2010.00725.x
  10. Hallgreen CE, 2016, PHARMACOEPIDEM DR S, V25, P238, DOI 10.1002/pds.3880
  11. Hughes D, 2016, PHARMACOEPIDEM DR S, V25, P251, DOI 10.1002/pds.3958
  12. Jansen E, 2022, VALUE HEALTH, V25, P1726, DOI 10.1016/j.jval.2022.01.026
  13. Juhaeri J., 2012, Pharmacoepidemiological research on outcomes of Therapeutics by a European consortium
  14. Juhaeri J, 2019, THER ADV DRUG SAF, V10, DOI 10.1177/2042098619871180
  15. Maloney MA, 2019, INT J TECHNOL ASSESS, V35, P384, DOI 10.1017/S026646231900062X
  16. McGowan J, 2016, J CLIN EPIDEMIOL, V75, P40, DOI 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2016.01.021
  17. Moher D, 2015, SYST REV-LONDON, V4, DOI [10.1186/2046-4053-4-1, 10.1016/j.ijsu.2010.07.299, 10.1136/bmj.b2700, 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097, 10.1016/j.ijsu.2010.02.007, 10.1136/bmj.b2535, 10.1136/bmj.i4086]
  18. Mt-Isa S, 2016, PHARM STAT, V15, P324, DOI 10.1002/pst.1690
  19. Mt-Isa S, 2014, PHARMACOEPIDEM DR S, V23, P667, DOI 10.1002/pds.3636
  20. Munn Zachary, 2018, BMC Med Res Methodol, V18, P143, DOI 10.1186/s12874-018-0611-x
  21. Nemzoff C, 2023, VALUE HEALTH, V26, P1549, DOI 10.1016/j.jval.2023.05.017
  22. Nixon R, 2016, BIOMETRICAL J, V58, P8, DOI 10.1002/bimj.201300248
  23. Ofori-Asenso R, 2020, FRONT MED-LAUSANNE, V7, DOI 10.3389/fmed.2020.582634
  24. Ouzzani M, 2016, SYST REV-LONDON, V5, DOI 10.1186/s13643-016-0384-4
  25. Peters MDJ., 2020, JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis, DOI [10.46658/JBIMES-20-12, DOI 10.46658/JBIMES-20-12]
  26. Peters MDJ, 2020, JBI EVID SYNTH, V18, P2119, DOI 10.11124/JBIES-20-00167
  27. Pignatti F, 2015, CLIN PHARMACOL THER, V98, P522, DOI 10.1002/cpt.203
  28. Pollock D, 2023, JBI EVID SYNTH, V21, P520, DOI 10.11124/JBIES-22-00123
  29. Puhan MA, 2012, BMC MED RES METHODOL, V12, DOI 10.1186/1471-2288-12-173
  30. Sengar G., Pharmaceutical Regulatory Agencies and Organizations around the World: Scope and Challenges in Drug Development
  31. Smith MY, 2021, THER INNOV REGUL SCI, V55, P415, DOI 10.1007/s43441-020-00230-3
  32. SR / MA / HTA / ITC, 2022, CADTH
  33. Tervonen T, 2019, CLIN PHARMACOL THER, V106, P955, DOI 10.1002/cpt.1447
  34. The European Medicines Agency, 2011, Benefit-risk methodology project Work package 2 report: Applicability of current tools and processes for regulatory benefit-risk assessment
  35. Tricco AC, 2018, ANN INTERN MED, V169, P467, DOI 10.7326/M18-0850

Coleções
Artigos e Materiais de Revistas Científicas - FM/MPR