SAĞLIK TEKNOLOJİİSİ DEĞERLENDİRMEDE FARKLI SAĞLIK TEKNOLOJİSİ TÜRLERİNİN AYIRT EDİCİ ÖZELLİKLERİ

Yıl 2017, Cilt: 13 Sayı: 1, 67 - 98, 29.12.2017

Songül Çınaroğlu

Öz

Sağlık teknolojilerinin
değerlendirilmesi sağlıkta politika belirleyiciler için karar vermeye yardımcı
bir araçtır. Bu değerlendirmeler sayesinde sağlıkta yeni teknolojilerin kalite,
güvenlik, maliyet ve etkinlik bakımından karşılaştırılması mümkün olmaktadır.
Sağlık teknolojisi değerlendirme türleri içerisinde ilaç, tıbbi teşhis ve
tedavi, tıbbi cihaz ve tıbbi malzemeler ile cerrahi uygulamalar ön plana
çıkmaktadır. Bu farklı tür sağlık teknolojilerinin ayırt edici özelliklerinin
bilinmesi bu konularda yapılacak araştırma tasarımlarına güç katacaktır. Bu
nedenle bu çalışmada farklı sağlık teknolojilerine yönelik araştırma
tasarımlarında ön plana çıkan özelliklerden bahsedilmiştir. İlaç/tıbbi teşhis
ve tedavi süreci ile ilgili araştırma tasarımlarında deney ve kontrol
gruplarına yapılacak atamaların kalitesini artıracak olan eğilim yüzdeleri
analizi ile maliyet ve zaman açısından fayda sağlayan yapay uç noktalarının
kullanımının önemine vurgu yapılmıştır. Tıbbi cihazlar ile ilgili olarak advers
etkilerin bildirimi, izleme ve önlenmesi için tıbbi cihaz vijilansı
sistemlerinin gerekliliğine değinilmiştir. Son olarak cerrahi uygulamalar ile
ilgili deneylerde sham grubunun oluşturulmasının etik açıdan tartışmalı olduğu
durumlarda alternatif bir araştırma tasarımı olan pragmatik deneylerden
bahsedilmiştir. Çalışma sonucunda elde edilen bilgilerin sağlık
teknolojilerinin değerlendirilmesi konusunda politika belirleyici, uygulayıcı
ve araştırmacıların farklı sağlık teknolojisi türlerine yönelik araştırmaların
ayırt edici özellikleri konusundaki farkındalık düzeylerinin artırması ümit
edilmektedir. 

Anahtar Kelimeler

Sağlık Teknolojisi Değerlendirme (STD), İlaç, Tıbbi Teşhis, Tıbbi Cihaz

Kaynakça

• 1. World Health Organization (WHO). 2007. Sixtieth World Health Assembly Resolutions and Decisions Annexes Geneva http://apps.who.int/gb/ebwha/pdf_files/WHASSA_WHA60-Rec1/E/cover-intro-60-en.pdf [Erişim Tarihi: 11.12.2015].
• 2. Health Technology Assessment International (HTAi) What is HTA. 2015. http://www.htai.org/htai/what-is-hta.html. [Erişim Tarihi: 14.12.2015].
• 3. Eddy D. (2009) Health technology assessment and evidence based medicine: what are we talking about? Value in Health,12(2), 6-7.
• 4. Campillo-Artero C. (2015) Regaining health technology assessment from oblivion: ımproving and ıntegrating regulation of drugs, medical devices, diagnostic tests and surgical ınnovations. Eds: Llano-Senaris JE, Campillo-Artero C. In: Health Technology Assessment and Health Policy Today: A Multifaced View of Their Unstable Crossroads, Springer. s.51-64.
• 5. Schubert F. (2002). Health technology assessment. the pharmaceutical industry perspective. In J Technol Assess Health Care,18(2), 184-191.
• 6. Rogowski W. (2007). Current impact of gene technology on healthcare a map of economic assessment. Health Policy, 80(2), 340-357.
• 7. Bridges JFP, Jones C. (2007). Patient-based health technology assessment: a vision of the future. In J Technol Assess Health Care, 23(1), 30-35.
• 8. Schulenburg G. (1997). Economic evaluation of medical technologies: from theory to practice the German perspective. Social Science&Medicine, 45(4), 621-633.
• 9. Garrido M.V., Zentner A., Busse R. (2008). Health systems, health policy and health technology assessment p.53-78. Eds: Garrido MV, Kristensen FB, Nielsen CP, Busse R. Health Technology Assessment and Health Policy Making in Europe: Current status, challenges and potential. WHO European Observatory on Health Systems and Policies. Observatory Studies Series No:14 UK s.69.
• 10. Hutton J, McGarth C, Fybourg JM, Termblay M, Bramley-Harker E, Henshall C. (2006). Framework for describing and classifying decision-making systems using tehnology assessment to determine the reimbursement of health Technologies (fourth hurdle systems), In J Technol Assess Health Care, 22(1), 10-18.
• 11. Danko D, Petrova G. (2014). Health technology assessment in the Balkans: opportunities for a balanced drug assessment system. Biotechnology & Biotechnological Equipment, 28(6), 1181-1189.
• 12. Drummond MF, Bloom BS, Carrin G, Hillman A, Hutchings C, Knill-Jones RP, Pouvourville GD, Torfs K. (1992) Issues in the cross-national assessment of health technology. In J Technol Assess Health Care, 8(4), 670-682.
• 13. Backhouse ME, Backhouse RJ, Edey S.A. (1992). Economic evaluation bibliography. Health Economics,1, 1-235.
• 14. Torbica A, Drummond M, Ferre F, Tarricone R, Fattore G. (2015) Economic evaluation and health technology assessment in Europe and USA. Methods for Health Technology Assessment of Medical Devices (MedTecHTA): A Euroepan Perspective. Work Package. 4-D 4.1.
• 15. Ramsay CR, Grant AM, Wallace SA, Gartwaite PH, Monk AF, Russell IT. (2000) Assessment of the learning curve in health technologies: a systematic review. In J Technol Assess Health Care, 16(4), 1095-1108.
• 16. Draborg E, Hansen-Gyrd D. (2005). International comparison of the definition and practical application of health technology assessment, In J Technol Assess Health Care, 21(1), 89-95.
• 17. Begg C, Cho M, Eastwood S, Horton R, Moher D, Olkin I, Pitkin R, Drummond R, Schulz KF, Simel D, Stroup DF. (1996). Improving the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials the CONSORT statement. JAMA, 276(8), 637-639.
• 18. Kaptchuk TJ, Goldman P, Stone DA, Stason WB. (2000). Do medical devices have enhanced plasebo effects? Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 53(8), 786-792.
• 19. Austin PC. (2008). A critical appraisal of propensity-score matching in the medical literature between 1996 and 2003. Statistics in Medicine, 27(12), 2037-2049.
• 20. Baser O. (2006). Too much ado about propensity score models? Comparing methods of propensity score matching. Value in Health, 9(6), 377-385.
• 21. Kaspar EÇ, Bekiroğlu N, Genceli M. (2010). Gözleme Dayalı Çalışmalarda Eğilim Skoru (Propensity Score) ve Tıp Bilimleri’nde Bir Uygulama. Türkiye Klinikleri Biyoistatistik Dergisi, 2(1): 1-10.
• 22. Heckman JJ, Ichimura H, Todd P. (1998). Matching as an econometric evaluation estimator. Review of Economic Studies, 64(4), 605-654.
• 23. Gupta K, Gupta J, Singh S. (2010). Surrogate endpoints: How reliable are they? Journal of Clinical Research Best Practices, 6(5), 1-6.
• 24. Sertdemir Y. (2006). Klinik Denemelerde Çeşitli Vekil Değişkenlerin Gerçek Sonlanım Değişkenleri Yerine Kullanılabilme Özelliklerinin Yeni Geliştirilmiş Kriterlere Göre Araştırılması. Doktora Tezi. Çukurova Üniversitesi, Biyoistatistik Anabilim Dalı, Adana.
• 25. Wittes J, Lakatos E, Probstfield J. (1989). Surrogate endpoints in clinical trials: cardiovascular diseases. Stat Med, 8(4), 415-425.
• 26. Bliznakov Z, Mitalas G, Pallikarakis N. (2006). Analysis and classification of medical device recalls. World Congress on Medical Physics and Biomedical Engineering, Volume 14 of the series IFMBE Proceedings. 3782-3785.
• 27. TC Sağlık Bakanlığı (SB) Türkiye İlaç ve Tıbbi Cihaz Kurumu Türkiye Farmakovijilans Merkezi Birimi Farmakovijilans Sözlüğü.
• https://www.titck.gov.tr/UnitsPageDescription.aspx?BirimId=qNbDt1uv/1w=&KonuId=jO7BhwUrOps=. [Erişim Tarihi: 11.11.2015].
• 28. Soyalan M, Demirdamar R, Toklu HZ, Gümüşel B. (2012). Kuzey Kıbrıs Türk Cumhuriyeti’nde Ulusal Farmakovilijans sistemi ve mevcut uygulamalar. Marmara Pharmaceutical Journal, 16, 159-163.
• 29. Beydon L, Ledenmat PY, Soltner C, Lebreton F, Hardin V, Benhamou D, Clergue F, Laguenie G. (2010). Adverse events with medical devices in anestehesia and ıntensive care unit patients recorded in the French safety database in 2005-2006. The Journal of the American Society of Anesthesiology, vol.112, 364-372.
• 30. Resnic FS, Gross TP, Marinac-Dabic D, Loyo-Berrios N, Donnelly S, Normand SLT, Matheny ME. (2010). Automated surveillance to detect postprocedure safety signals of approved cardiovascular devices. JAMA, 304(18), 2019-2027.
• 31. Hefflin BJ, Gross TP, Schroeder TJ. (2004). Estimates of medical device-associated adverse events from emergency departments. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 27(3), 246-253.
• 32. Wang C, Hefflin B, Cope JU, Gross TP, Ritchie MB, Qi Y, Chu J. (2010). Emergency department visits for medical device associated adverse events among children. Pediatrics, 126(2), 247-259.
• 33. Brown SL, Morrison AE, Parmentier CM, Woo EK, Vishnuvajjala RL. (1997). Infusion pump adverse events: experience from medical device reports. Journal of Intravenous Nursing, 20(1), 41-49.
• 34. Sağlık Bakanlığı (SB) İlaç ve Eczacılık Genel Müdürlüğü Advers Etki Bildirim Formu. 2015.
• www.mersineczaciodasi.org.tr/.../102705zGSadvers_etki_bildirim_form. [Erişim Tarihi: 14.12.2015].
• 35. Gupta P, Janodia M, Jagadish PC, Udupa N. (2010). Medical Device vigilance systems: India, US, UK and Australia. Medical Devices: Evidence and Research, 3, 67-79.
• 36. Amoore J, Ingram P. (2002) Learning from adverse incidents involving medical devices. BMJ, 325(7358), 272-275.
• 37. Sarma A, Normand SLT, Hatfield LA, Matheny ME, Resnic FS. (2013). The learning curve for medical devices: experience with vascular closure devices in Machassusets. Journal of the American College of Cradiology, 61(10), 1.
• 38. Joseph RA, Goh AC, Cuevas SP, Donovan MA, Kauffman MG, Salas NA, Miles B, Bass BL, Dunkin BJ. (2010). Chopstick surgery: a novel technique improve surgeon performance and eliminates arm collision in robotic single-incision laparoscopic surgery. Surg Endosc, 24, 1331-1335.
• 39. Hauser RG. (2012). Here we go again- another failure of postmarketing device surveillance. The New England Journal of Medicine, 366(10), 873-875.
• 40. Resnic FS, Normand SLT. (2012). Postmarketing surveillance of medical devices-filling in the gap. The New England Journal of Medicine, 366(10), 875.
• 41. Idea, Development, Exploration, Assessment, Long-term study (IDEAL Model). 2015. http://www.ideal-collaboration.net/. [Erişim Tarihi: 14.12.2015].
• 42. Miller FG. (2004). Sham surgery: an ethical analysis, sceince and engineering ethics, 10(1), 157-166.
• 43. Majeed AW, Troy G, Nicholl JP, Smythe A, Reed MW, Stoddard CJ, Peacock J, Johnson AG. (1996). Randomised, prospective, single-blind comparison of laparoscopic versus small-incision cholecystectomy. Lancet, 347(9007), 989-994.
• 44. The Clavien-Dindo Surgical Complication Classification System. 2015. http://www.surgicalcomplication.info/index-2.html. [Erişim Tarihi:10.11.2015].
• 45. Binbay M, Yazıcı Ö, Kaba M, Berberoğlu Y, Müslümanoğlu AY, Tefekli AH. (2009). Ürolojide laparoskopik girişimler ile ilgili istenmeyen yan etkiler: 313 girişimin değerlendirilmesİ. Türk Üroloji Dergisi, 35(1), 17-22.
• 46. Farrakhyar F, Karanicolas PJ, Thoma A, Simunovic M, Bhandari M, Devereaux PJ, Anvari M, Adili A, Guyatt G. (2010). Randomized controlled trials of surgical ınterventions. Annals of Surgery, 251(3), 409-416.
• 47. Novitzky D, Shroyer AL, Collins JF, McDonald GO, Lucke J, Hattler B, Kozora E, Bradham DD, Baltz J, Grover FL, VA. (2007). Randomized On/Off Bypass (ROOBY) Study Group. A study design to assess the safety and efficacy of on-pump versus off-pump coronary bypass grafting: the ROOBY trial. Clinical Trials, 4, 81-91.
• 48. Roland M, Torgerson DJ. (1998). What are pragmatic trials? BMJ, 316(7127), 285.
• 49. Herzlinger R. (2006). Why innovation in health care is so hard? Harvard Business Review, 84(5), 58-66.
• 50. Hoffmann C, Stoykova BA, Nixon J, Glanville JM, Misso K, Drummond MF. (2002). Do health-care decision makers find economic evaluations useful? The findings of focus group research in UK health authorities. Value in Health, 5(2), 71-79.
• 51. Danko D. (2014). Health technology assessment in low and middle ıncome countries: recommendations for a balanced assessment system. Journal of Market Access & Health Policy, 2, 1-10.
• 52. Bridges JFP, Jones C. (2007). Patient-based health technology assessment: a vision of the future. In J Technol Assess Health Care, 23(1), 30-35.