Effectiveness of interventions based on implantable devices: meta-analyses or systematic reviews that fail to indicate which device brands were used

Messori, Andrea; Trippoli, Sabrina; Marinai, Claudio

doi:10.1136/ebmed-2017-110802

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The information needed for application of ‘our method’ in the real world may sometimes be unavailable. 14 While this can be an important practical obstacle in implementing this approach, one solution is that the call for tender (like those commonly published in the Official Journal of the European Community ) should specify which data must be provided by individual applicants. We recognise, however, that most joint registries do not record outcomes except revision rates.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Handling the procurement of prostheses for total hip replacement: description of an original value based approach and application to a real-life dataset reported in the UK

Messori

Trippoli

Marinai³

2017

BMJ Open

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectivesIn most European countries, innovative medical devices are not managed according to cost–utility methods, the reason being that national agencies do not generally evaluate these products. The objective of our study was to investigate the cost-utility profile of prostheses for hip replacement and to calculate a value-based score to be used in the process of procurement and tendering for these devices.MethodsThe first phase of our study was aimed at retrieving the studies reporting the values of QALYs, direct cost, and net monetary benefit (NMB) from patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty (THA) with different brands of hip prosthesis. The second phase was aimed at calculating, on the basis of the results of cost–utility analysis, a tender score for each device (defined according to standard tendering equations and adapted to a 0–100 scale). This allowed us to determine the ranking of each device in the simulated tender.ResultsWe identified a single study as the source of information for our analysis. Nine device brands (cemented, cementless, or hybrid) were evaluated. The cemented prosthesis Exeter V40/Elite Plus Ogee, the cementless device Taperloc/Exceed, and the hybrid device Exeter V40/Trident had the highest NMB (£152 877, £156 356, and £156 210, respectively) and the best value-based tender score.ConclusionsThe incorporation of value-based criteria in the procurement process can contribute to optimising the value for money for THA devices. According to the approach described herein, the acquisition of these devices does not necessarily converge on the product with the lowest cost; in fact, more costly devices should be preferred when their increased cost is offset by the monetary value of the increased clinical benefit.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%