Advances in medical technology over the next 20 years

Spiby, Jackie

doi:10.1093/oxfordjournals.pubmed.a042419

Cited by 8 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…More than half of company predictions for MA were optimistic, being earlier than the actual date. Our findings regarding the accuracy of pharmaceutical company predictions agree with the general comments of other authors, who suggest that one cannot expect fully accurate predictions and that by their very nature some predictions will inevitably be wrong . Accordingly, there are inherent limits to the accuracy of healthcare horizon scanning programmes and the future will always be uncertain.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 87%

Accuracy of pharmaceutical company licensing predictions: projected versus actual licensing dates

Doos

Ward

Stevens

et al. 2016

J Pharm Health Serv Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectivesTo determine the accuracy of pharmaceutical companies' predictions of drug licensing timeframes for their products in late stage clinical development.MethodsWe compared predicted licensing dates provided to the National Institute for Health Research Horizon Scanning Research and Intelligence Centre by pharmaceutical companies against actual marketing authorisation application (MAA) and marketing authorisation (MA) dates published by the European Medicines Agency for drugs granted authorisation between 2009 and 2013.Key findingsOne hundred and twenty‐three drugs met our inclusion criteria. About 78% were new drugs and 16% had orphan designation. Less than half (44%) and less than a quarter (24%) of MAA and MA predictions respectively were considered accurate (same month or 1 month either side of the actual date). Pharmaceutical companies were significantly more accurate in predicting MAA dates than MA dates (P < 0.001). For accurate predictions, the mean duration between the prediction being made and the actual MAA and MA dates were 17.5 and 18.7 months respectively. Out of the total 108 MA predictions, almost two‐thirds (65.4%, 16/26) of short‐term predictions (made in the 2 years prior to the actual MA) were accurate. For predicted dates that were earlier than the actual MA date, there was a positive relationship between accuracy and the time between the prediction and authorisation.ConclusionsEven in predicting near events from well‐informed sources, accuracy is imperfect. There appears to be an optimum time for the provision of accurate information on predicted MAA and MA dates for drugs. This information is crucial for effective early awareness and alert activities.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 87%

Accuracy of pharmaceutical company licensing predictions: projected versus actual licensing dates

Doos

Ward

Stevens

et al. 2016

J Pharm Health Serv Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Forecasting has been a major area of application of the method in many different fields, such as public administration (Preble, 1983). medicine (Spiby, 1988), and technology diffusion (Gray & Nilles, 1983).…”

Section: The Delphi Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Managing Delphi Surveys Using Nonparametric Statistical Techniques*

1997

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Information systems researchers have often turned to a variant of the Delphi surveytechnique to support their research of key issues in their field. n o particular weaknesses of past studies using this approach have been a lack of a definitive method for conducting the research and a lack of statistical support for the conclusions drawn by the researchers. In this paper, the author presents a method, based on nonparametric statistical techniques, to conduct ranking-type Delphi surveys, perform analysis, and report results. The author takes this one step further by illustrating an actual analysis of a Delphi survey. The analysis is compared to results that were presented without the benefit of the author's approach. This paper shows that use of the advocated approach can streamline and strengthen studies, improve the validity of results. and thus better serve the consumers of the research findings. Since the ranking-type Delphi is so popular among information systems researchers, a consistent method is needed to apply to their data collection, analysis, and reporting of results. This paper provides such a method in concise form and illustrates the use of the method in a manner affording comparison between it and previous practice. S h j e c t Areas: Group Decision Making, Nonparametric Staiistics, Research Design, andStrategic P h n i n g .

show abstract

“…Although ideally it was the type I literature which we were seeking to inform this report, no such studies were identified by the literature search. However, Box 1 gives the bibliographic details of the five studies 1,95,[110][111][112] which adopted formal and empirical methods to identify future healthcare technologies across the broad spectrum of health care, for example a systematic review of the literature or some form of opinion gathering (the type II literature). These five studies are reviewed on pages 16-23, and in some cases did provide some limited methodological analysis, albeit not in a systematic manner.…”

Section: Results Of Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

'Early warning systems' for identifying new healthcare technologies.

Robert

Stevens²,

Gabbay³

1999

Health Technology Assessment

111

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Health Technology Assessment is indexed in Index Medicus/MEDLINE and Excerpta Medica/ EMBASE. Copies of the Executive Summaries are available from the NCCHTA web site (see overleaf). NHS R&D HTA Programme T he overall aim of the NHS R&D Health Technology Assessment (HTA) programme is to ensure that high-quality research information on the costs, effectiveness and broader impact of health technologies is produced in the most efficient way for those who use, manage and work in the NHS. Research is undertaken in those areas where the evidence will lead to the greatest benefits to patients, either through improved patient outcomes or the most efficient use of NHS resources. The Standing Group on Health Technology advises on national priorities for health technology assessment. Six advisory panels assist the Standing Group in identifying and prioritising projects. These priorities are then considered by the HTA Commissioning Board supported by the National Coordinating Centre for HTA (NCCHTA). This report is one of a series covering acute care, diagnostics and imaging, methodology, pharmaceuticals, population screening, and primary and community care. It was identified as a priority by the Methodology Panel and funded as project number 94/10/02. The views expressed in this publication are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the Standing Group, the Commissioning Board, the Panel members or the Department of Health. The editors wish to emphasise that funding and publication of this research by the NHS should not be taken as implicit support for the recommendations for policy contained herein. In particular, policy options in the area of screening will be considered by the National Screening Committee. This Committee, chaired by the Chief Medical Officer, will take into account the views expressed here, further available evidence and other relevant considerations. Reviews in Health Technology Assessment are termed 'systematic' when the account of the search, appraisal and synthesis methods (to minimise biases and random errors) would, in theory, permit the replication of the review by others.

show abstract

Advances in medical technology over the next 20 years

Cited by 8 publications

References 0 publications

Accuracy of pharmaceutical company licensing predictions: projected versus actual licensing dates

Accuracy of pharmaceutical company licensing predictions: projected versus actual licensing dates

Managing Delphi Surveys Using Nonparametric Statistical Techniques*

'Early warning systems' for identifying new healthcare technologies.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About