New health technologies often motivate them by being superior to existing technologies regarding patient -related results. But sometimes their benefits are other dimensions with fewer side effects or low costs, but claim to be non -human in terms of patient -related results. Taylor and colleagues 1 have presented a very beneficial and detailed account for the current practices of performing HTA in the latter environment.
We are grateful for the research that provides a comprehensive overview and solves many important problems in this context. In fact, as can be seen in the drug control approach, Taylor et al is a potentially assumed that HTA of non -invasive technology requires a different approach than HTA of potential technology. None of the HTA and regulators reviewed in the paper seems to have questioned this assumption. But we think that it is worth questioning this family because we can allow different perspectives to the problem.
The core of HTA is to identify and quantify the potential advantages and defects of new technologies to support other stakeholders’ decision -making. HTA provides many technologies that support stakeholders who are balanced between advantages and defects by visualizing certain proportions or visuals in a favorable deficiency plane.
Potential for potential technology is the improvement of patient -related results. Potential defects, on the other hand, may be associated with damage, safety risks, use burden, costs, ethics or social impacts. Technically, this concept is potentially the same as non -participation skills. Here, the benefits are expected in relation to damage, safety, cost, use burden or social impact, and potential deficits may be regarded with patient -related results. Therefore, we do not need new technologies to balance the benefits and defects. For example, if the expected result is increased by the expected results by the factor X, will the patient accept the increase in the risk of a specific side effect as a factor? ”The question is now,” If the risk of the specific side effects is reduced by the factor X.
In this settings, the advantages are often implicit, so it can be argued that it is impossible to quantify or difficult. In fact, the corresponding empirical irradiation (2) has been found that data is not systematically collected to support the advantages of most NI tests. However, half of the NI tests were found to collect data for at least one of the potential advantages, and most of them were able to collect more systematically in these data. Of the 170 advantages claimed in the 87 non -climbing tests, only 19 mentioned the advantages at the medical system level.
But this is not surprising considering the above mentioned point of view. Potentially, HTA of non -wage technology requires data at the same dimension as HTA of potentially excellent technology. In both situations, there is no reason to believe that RCT generally differs in the possibility of providing these data and collecting such data. The lack of data on potential advantages in the non -heated test reflects that the quality noted is poorly pointed out by Taylor et al (1). It should be noted that the balance between stakeholders’ strengths and defects does not need to agree with the non -climbing margin. Rather, as in the case of HTA, a contract for a threshold for a specific ratio is required.
Based on these considerations, I think it is worth considering a favorable deficiency point of view, considering the HTA of non -participation skills. This provides an approach to avoid in -depth discussions on the dagger margin. We do not claim that this will solve all NI -related analysis problems, but it provides useful additions or alternatives. As a result, we suggest that we will expand the 14 “non -heated or clinical equality claims” presented in Table 4 of Taylor et al (1) by additional recommendations.
-
Potentially, the HTA of non -repentance technology should be based on the balance of potential advantages for potential technologies and exactly matching defects. Therefore, non -membership tests are recommended to collect data on the same standards and strict advantages and disadvantages as in superiority tests.
