Abstract
This paper aims to introduce the rapid-review guidelines for health technology assessment published by the Ministry of Health of Brazil. Typically, this approach supports the decision making of health managers on acquisition, diffusion and obsolescence stages of health technologies. The seven steps of rapid-review were also described: framing the question, search strategy, search for secondary sources, search for primary sources, critical appraisal of evidence validity, synthesis and interpretation of results, and making recommendations.
References
1. Bai A, Shukla V, Bak G, Wells G. Quality Assessment Tools Project Report. Ottawa: Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health; 2012. [ Links ]
2. Banta D. The development of health technology assessment. Health Policy. 2003;63(2):121-32. [ Links ]
3. Campanatti-Ostiz H, Andrade CR. Health sciences descriptors in the Brazilian speech-language and hearing science. Pro Fono [periódico na internet]. 2010 [acesso em 4 fev 2013];22(4):397-402. Disponível em: http://www.scielo.br/pdf/pfono/v22n4/en_06.pdf [ Links ]
4. Ciani O, Tarricone R, Torbica A. Diffusion and use of health technology assessment in policy making: What lessons for decentralised healthcare systems? Health Policy. 2012;108(2-3):194-202. [ Links ]
5. Fitzgerald MH, Phillips PA. Centralized and non-centralized ethics review: a five nation study. Account Res. 2006;13(1):47-74. [ Links ]
6. Grant MJ, Booth A. A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Info Libr J [periódico na internet]. 2009 [acesso em 4 fev 2013];26(2):91-108. Disponível em: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x/pdf [ Links ]
7. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Kunz R, Atkins D, Brozek J, Vist G, et al. GRADE guidelines: 2. Framing the question and deciding on important outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64(4):395-400. [ Links ]
8. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist G, Kunz R, Brozek J, Alonso-Coello P, et al. GRADE guidelines: 4. Rating the quality of evidence-study limitations (risk of bias). J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64(4):407-15. [ Links ]
9. Guyatt GH, Rennie D. Users’ guides to the medical literature. JAMA [periódico na internet].1993 [acesso em 4 fev 2013];270(17):2096-7. Disponível em: http://calgaryem.com/files/2009_08_13-Stats_moment-Users_guide.pdf [ Links ]
10. Henshall C, Mardhani-Bayne L, Frønsdal KB, Klemp M. Interactions between health technology assessment, coverage, and regulatory processes: emerging issues, goals, and opportunities. Int J Technol Assess Health Care [periódico na internet]. 2011 [acesso em 4 fev 2013];27(3):253-60. Disponível em: http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayFulltext?type=1&fid=8327827&jid=THC&volumeId=27&issueId=03&aid=8327825 [ Links ]
11. Hirst A, Altman DG. Are peer reviewers encouraged to use reporting guidelines? A survey of 116 health research journals. PLoS One [periódico na internet]. 2012 [acesso em 4 fev 2013];7(4):e35621. Disponível em: http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0035621 [ Links ]
12. Howitt P, Darzi A, Yang GZ, Ashrafian H, Atun R, Barlow J, et al. Technologies for global health. Lancet. 2012;380(9840):507-35. [ Links ]
13. Huang M, Névéol A, Lu Z. Recommending MeSH terms for annotating biomedical articles. J Am Med Inform Assoc [periódico na internet]. 2011 [acesso em 4 fev 2013];18(5):660-7. Disponível em: http://171.67.114.118/content/18/5/660.full.pdf+html [ Links ]
14. Kidholm K, Ehlers L, Korsbek L, Kjaerby R, Beck M. Assessment of the quality of mini-HTA. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2009;25(1):42-8. [ Links ]
15. Lavis JN, Oxman AD, Souza NM, Lewin S, Gruen RL, Fretheim A. SUPPORT Tools for evidence-informed health Policymaking (STP) 9: Assessing the applicability of the findings of a systematic review. Health Res Policy Syst. 2009;7 (Suppl 1):S9. [ Links ]
16. Ministério da Saúde. Portal Saúde Baseada em Evidências [base de dados na internet]. Brasília (DF);2012. [acesso em 4 fev 2013]. Disponível em: http://portalsaude.saude.gov.br/portalsaude/index.cfm?portal=pagina.visualizarArea&codArea=392 [ Links ]
17. Ministério da Saúde. Secretaria de Ciência, Tecnologia e Insumos Estratégicos. Departamento de Ciência e Tecnologia. Diretrizes metodológicas: elaboração de pareceres técnico-científicos [monografia na internet]. 3.ed.rev.atual. Brasília (DF); 2012. [acesso em 4 fev 2013]. Disponível em: http://200.214.130.94/rebrats/publicacoes/DiretrizesPTC.pdf [ Links ]
18. Silva MT, Almeida RT, Gava CM, Galvão TF, da Silva EM, Santos VC, et al. Brazilian health technology assessment bulletin: editorial process, dissemination strategies, critical appraisal, and initial impact. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2012;28(1):65-9. [ Links ]
19. Souza LE, Contandriopoulos AP. Research utilization in health policy-making: obstacles and strategies. Cad Saude Publica [periódico na internet]. 2004 [acesso em 4 fev 2013];20(2):546-54. Disponível em: http://www.scielo.br/pdf/csp/v20n2/23.pdf [ Links ]
20. Tromp N, Baltussen R. Mapping of multiple criteria for priority setting of health interventions: an aid for decision makers. BMC Health Serv Res [periódico na internet]. 2012 [acesso em 4 fev 2013];12(1):454. Disponível em: http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/pdf/1472-6963-12-454.pdf [ Links ]
2. Banta D. The development of health technology assessment. Health Policy. 2003;63(2):121-32. [ Links ]
3. Campanatti-Ostiz H, Andrade CR. Health sciences descriptors in the Brazilian speech-language and hearing science. Pro Fono [periódico na internet]. 2010 [acesso em 4 fev 2013];22(4):397-402. Disponível em: http://www.scielo.br/pdf/pfono/v22n4/en_06.pdf [ Links ]
4. Ciani O, Tarricone R, Torbica A. Diffusion and use of health technology assessment in policy making: What lessons for decentralised healthcare systems? Health Policy. 2012;108(2-3):194-202. [ Links ]
5. Fitzgerald MH, Phillips PA. Centralized and non-centralized ethics review: a five nation study. Account Res. 2006;13(1):47-74. [ Links ]
6. Grant MJ, Booth A. A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Info Libr J [periódico na internet]. 2009 [acesso em 4 fev 2013];26(2):91-108. Disponível em: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x/pdf [ Links ]
7. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Kunz R, Atkins D, Brozek J, Vist G, et al. GRADE guidelines: 2. Framing the question and deciding on important outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64(4):395-400. [ Links ]
8. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist G, Kunz R, Brozek J, Alonso-Coello P, et al. GRADE guidelines: 4. Rating the quality of evidence-study limitations (risk of bias). J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64(4):407-15. [ Links ]
9. Guyatt GH, Rennie D. Users’ guides to the medical literature. JAMA [periódico na internet].1993 [acesso em 4 fev 2013];270(17):2096-7. Disponível em: http://calgaryem.com/files/2009_08_13-Stats_moment-Users_guide.pdf [ Links ]
10. Henshall C, Mardhani-Bayne L, Frønsdal KB, Klemp M. Interactions between health technology assessment, coverage, and regulatory processes: emerging issues, goals, and opportunities. Int J Technol Assess Health Care [periódico na internet]. 2011 [acesso em 4 fev 2013];27(3):253-60. Disponível em: http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayFulltext?type=1&fid=8327827&jid=THC&volumeId=27&issueId=03&aid=8327825 [ Links ]
11. Hirst A, Altman DG. Are peer reviewers encouraged to use reporting guidelines? A survey of 116 health research journals. PLoS One [periódico na internet]. 2012 [acesso em 4 fev 2013];7(4):e35621. Disponível em: http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0035621 [ Links ]
12. Howitt P, Darzi A, Yang GZ, Ashrafian H, Atun R, Barlow J, et al. Technologies for global health. Lancet. 2012;380(9840):507-35. [ Links ]
13. Huang M, Névéol A, Lu Z. Recommending MeSH terms for annotating biomedical articles. J Am Med Inform Assoc [periódico na internet]. 2011 [acesso em 4 fev 2013];18(5):660-7. Disponível em: http://171.67.114.118/content/18/5/660.full.pdf+html [ Links ]
14. Kidholm K, Ehlers L, Korsbek L, Kjaerby R, Beck M. Assessment of the quality of mini-HTA. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2009;25(1):42-8. [ Links ]
15. Lavis JN, Oxman AD, Souza NM, Lewin S, Gruen RL, Fretheim A. SUPPORT Tools for evidence-informed health Policymaking (STP) 9: Assessing the applicability of the findings of a systematic review. Health Res Policy Syst. 2009;7 (Suppl 1):S9. [ Links ]
16. Ministério da Saúde. Portal Saúde Baseada em Evidências [base de dados na internet]. Brasília (DF);2012. [acesso em 4 fev 2013]. Disponível em: http://portalsaude.saude.gov.br/portalsaude/index.cfm?portal=pagina.visualizarArea&codArea=392 [ Links ]
17. Ministério da Saúde. Secretaria de Ciência, Tecnologia e Insumos Estratégicos. Departamento de Ciência e Tecnologia. Diretrizes metodológicas: elaboração de pareceres técnico-científicos [monografia na internet]. 3.ed.rev.atual. Brasília (DF); 2012. [acesso em 4 fev 2013]. Disponível em: http://200.214.130.94/rebrats/publicacoes/DiretrizesPTC.pdf [ Links ]
18. Silva MT, Almeida RT, Gava CM, Galvão TF, da Silva EM, Santos VC, et al. Brazilian health technology assessment bulletin: editorial process, dissemination strategies, critical appraisal, and initial impact. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2012;28(1):65-9. [ Links ]
19. Souza LE, Contandriopoulos AP. Research utilization in health policy-making: obstacles and strategies. Cad Saude Publica [periódico na internet]. 2004 [acesso em 4 fev 2013];20(2):546-54. Disponível em: http://www.scielo.br/pdf/csp/v20n2/23.pdf [ Links ]
20. Tromp N, Baltussen R. Mapping of multiple criteria for priority setting of health interventions: an aid for decision makers. BMC Health Serv Res [periódico na internet]. 2012 [acesso em 4 fev 2013];12(1):454. Disponível em: http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/pdf/1472-6963-12-454.pdf [ Links ]
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Copyright (c) 2013 Marcus Tolentino Silva
Downloads
Download data is not yet available.
Metrics
Metrics Loading ...