Applying quantitative benefit-risk analysis to aid regulatory decision making in diagnostic imaging: methods, challenges, and opportunities

Health agencies making regulatory marketing-authorization decisions use qualitative and quantitative approaches to assess expected benefits and expected risks associated with medical interventions. There is, however, no universal standard approach that regulatory agencies consistently use to conduct...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Academic radiology 2014-09, Vol.21 (9), p.1138-1143
Hauptverfasser: Agapova, Maria, Devine, Emily Beth, Bresnahan, Brian W, Higashi, Mitchell K, Garrison, Jr, Louis P
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 1143
container_issue 9
container_start_page 1138
container_title Academic radiology
container_volume 21
creator Agapova, Maria
Devine, Emily Beth
Bresnahan, Brian W
Higashi, Mitchell K
Garrison, Jr, Louis P
description Health agencies making regulatory marketing-authorization decisions use qualitative and quantitative approaches to assess expected benefits and expected risks associated with medical interventions. There is, however, no universal standard approach that regulatory agencies consistently use to conduct benefit-risk assessment (BRA) for pharmaceuticals or medical devices, including for imaging technologies. Economics, health services research, and health outcomes research use quantitative approaches to elicit preferences of stakeholders, identify priorities, and model health conditions and health intervention effects. Challenges to BRA in medical devices are outlined, highlighting additional barriers in radiology. Three quantitative methods--multi-criteria decision analysis, health outcomes modeling and stated-choice survey--are assessed using criteria that are important in balancing benefits and risks of medical devices and imaging technologies. To be useful in regulatory BRA, quantitative methods need to: aggregate multiple benefits and risks, incorporate qualitative considerations, account for uncertainty, and make clear whose preferences/priorities are being used. Each quantitative method performs differently across these criteria and little is known about how BRA estimates and conclusions vary by approach. While no specific quantitative method is likely to be the strongest in all of the important areas, quantitative methods may have a place in BRA of medical devices and radiology. Quantitative BRA approaches have been more widely applied in medicines, with fewer BRAs in devices. Despite substantial differences in characteristics of pharmaceuticals and devices, BRA methods may be as applicable to medical devices and imaging technologies as they are to pharmaceuticals. Further research to guide the development and selection of quantitative BRA methods for medical devices and imaging technologies is needed.
doi_str_mv 10.1016/j.acra.2014.05.006
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1552374483</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>1552374483</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-p211t-985b31b6bce9788b0183df2533daa09b583edcac3597b33062db6971e7ceb4af3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNo1kE1LxDAYhIMgfqz-AQ-Sowdbk6ZJU28ifoHgRc_Lm-TdbtY2qU0q7G_wT7uinmYYHgZmCDnjrOSMq6tNCXaCsmK8LpksGVN75IjrRhc1q9UhOU5pwxiXSosDclhJzhqt1BH5uhnHfutDRz9mCNlnyP4TqcGAK5-Lyad3CgH6bfKJ5kjBOzphN_eQ47SlDq1PPgY6wPtPiQ_UeehCTNlb6gfoduk1HTCvo0uX1K6h7zF0uPMQHI3jGKc8B589phOyv4I-4emfLsjb_d3r7WPx_PLwdHvzXIwV57lotTSCG2Usto3WhnEt3KqSQjgA1hqpBToLVsi2MUIwVTmj2oZjY9HUsBILcvHbO07xY8aUl4NPFvseAsY5LbmUlWjqWosdev6HzmZAtxyn3aZpu_w_UHwDPW51jg</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1552374483</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Applying quantitative benefit-risk analysis to aid regulatory decision making in diagnostic imaging: methods, challenges, and opportunities</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals</source><creator>Agapova, Maria ; Devine, Emily Beth ; Bresnahan, Brian W ; Higashi, Mitchell K ; Garrison, Jr, Louis P</creator><creatorcontrib>Agapova, Maria ; Devine, Emily Beth ; Bresnahan, Brian W ; Higashi, Mitchell K ; Garrison, Jr, Louis P</creatorcontrib><description>Health agencies making regulatory marketing-authorization decisions use qualitative and quantitative approaches to assess expected benefits and expected risks associated with medical interventions. There is, however, no universal standard approach that regulatory agencies consistently use to conduct benefit-risk assessment (BRA) for pharmaceuticals or medical devices, including for imaging technologies. Economics, health services research, and health outcomes research use quantitative approaches to elicit preferences of stakeholders, identify priorities, and model health conditions and health intervention effects. Challenges to BRA in medical devices are outlined, highlighting additional barriers in radiology. Three quantitative methods--multi-criteria decision analysis, health outcomes modeling and stated-choice survey--are assessed using criteria that are important in balancing benefits and risks of medical devices and imaging technologies. To be useful in regulatory BRA, quantitative methods need to: aggregate multiple benefits and risks, incorporate qualitative considerations, account for uncertainty, and make clear whose preferences/priorities are being used. Each quantitative method performs differently across these criteria and little is known about how BRA estimates and conclusions vary by approach. While no specific quantitative method is likely to be the strongest in all of the important areas, quantitative methods may have a place in BRA of medical devices and radiology. Quantitative BRA approaches have been more widely applied in medicines, with fewer BRAs in devices. Despite substantial differences in characteristics of pharmaceuticals and devices, BRA methods may be as applicable to medical devices and imaging technologies as they are to pharmaceuticals. Further research to guide the development and selection of quantitative BRA methods for medical devices and imaging technologies is needed.</description><identifier>EISSN: 1878-4046</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.acra.2014.05.006</identifier><identifier>PMID: 25107866</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States</publisher><subject>Decision Support Techniques ; Diagnostic Imaging - methods ; Health Services Research - methods ; Humans ; Risk Assessment - methods</subject><ispartof>Academic radiology, 2014-09, Vol.21 (9), p.1138-1143</ispartof><rights>Copyright © 2014 AUR. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,27903,27904</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25107866$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Agapova, Maria</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Devine, Emily Beth</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bresnahan, Brian W</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Higashi, Mitchell K</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Garrison, Jr, Louis P</creatorcontrib><title>Applying quantitative benefit-risk analysis to aid regulatory decision making in diagnostic imaging: methods, challenges, and opportunities</title><title>Academic radiology</title><addtitle>Acad Radiol</addtitle><description>Health agencies making regulatory marketing-authorization decisions use qualitative and quantitative approaches to assess expected benefits and expected risks associated with medical interventions. There is, however, no universal standard approach that regulatory agencies consistently use to conduct benefit-risk assessment (BRA) for pharmaceuticals or medical devices, including for imaging technologies. Economics, health services research, and health outcomes research use quantitative approaches to elicit preferences of stakeholders, identify priorities, and model health conditions and health intervention effects. Challenges to BRA in medical devices are outlined, highlighting additional barriers in radiology. Three quantitative methods--multi-criteria decision analysis, health outcomes modeling and stated-choice survey--are assessed using criteria that are important in balancing benefits and risks of medical devices and imaging technologies. To be useful in regulatory BRA, quantitative methods need to: aggregate multiple benefits and risks, incorporate qualitative considerations, account for uncertainty, and make clear whose preferences/priorities are being used. Each quantitative method performs differently across these criteria and little is known about how BRA estimates and conclusions vary by approach. While no specific quantitative method is likely to be the strongest in all of the important areas, quantitative methods may have a place in BRA of medical devices and radiology. Quantitative BRA approaches have been more widely applied in medicines, with fewer BRAs in devices. Despite substantial differences in characteristics of pharmaceuticals and devices, BRA methods may be as applicable to medical devices and imaging technologies as they are to pharmaceuticals. Further research to guide the development and selection of quantitative BRA methods for medical devices and imaging technologies is needed.</description><subject>Decision Support Techniques</subject><subject>Diagnostic Imaging - methods</subject><subject>Health Services Research - methods</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Risk Assessment - methods</subject><issn>1878-4046</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2014</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNo1kE1LxDAYhIMgfqz-AQ-Sowdbk6ZJU28ifoHgRc_Lm-TdbtY2qU0q7G_wT7uinmYYHgZmCDnjrOSMq6tNCXaCsmK8LpksGVN75IjrRhc1q9UhOU5pwxiXSosDclhJzhqt1BH5uhnHfutDRz9mCNlnyP4TqcGAK5-Lyad3CgH6bfKJ5kjBOzphN_eQ47SlDq1PPgY6wPtPiQ_UeehCTNlb6gfoduk1HTCvo0uX1K6h7zF0uPMQHI3jGKc8B589phOyv4I-4emfLsjb_d3r7WPx_PLwdHvzXIwV57lotTSCG2Usto3WhnEt3KqSQjgA1hqpBToLVsi2MUIwVTmj2oZjY9HUsBILcvHbO07xY8aUl4NPFvseAsY5LbmUlWjqWosdev6HzmZAtxyn3aZpu_w_UHwDPW51jg</recordid><startdate>20140901</startdate><enddate>20140901</enddate><creator>Agapova, Maria</creator><creator>Devine, Emily Beth</creator><creator>Bresnahan, Brian W</creator><creator>Higashi, Mitchell K</creator><creator>Garrison, Jr, Louis P</creator><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20140901</creationdate><title>Applying quantitative benefit-risk analysis to aid regulatory decision making in diagnostic imaging: methods, challenges, and opportunities</title><author>Agapova, Maria ; Devine, Emily Beth ; Bresnahan, Brian W ; Higashi, Mitchell K ; Garrison, Jr, Louis P</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-p211t-985b31b6bce9788b0183df2533daa09b583edcac3597b33062db6971e7ceb4af3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2014</creationdate><topic>Decision Support Techniques</topic><topic>Diagnostic Imaging - methods</topic><topic>Health Services Research - methods</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Risk Assessment - methods</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Agapova, Maria</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Devine, Emily Beth</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bresnahan, Brian W</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Higashi, Mitchell K</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Garrison, Jr, Louis P</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Academic radiology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Agapova, Maria</au><au>Devine, Emily Beth</au><au>Bresnahan, Brian W</au><au>Higashi, Mitchell K</au><au>Garrison, Jr, Louis P</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Applying quantitative benefit-risk analysis to aid regulatory decision making in diagnostic imaging: methods, challenges, and opportunities</atitle><jtitle>Academic radiology</jtitle><addtitle>Acad Radiol</addtitle><date>2014-09-01</date><risdate>2014</risdate><volume>21</volume><issue>9</issue><spage>1138</spage><epage>1143</epage><pages>1138-1143</pages><eissn>1878-4046</eissn><abstract>Health agencies making regulatory marketing-authorization decisions use qualitative and quantitative approaches to assess expected benefits and expected risks associated with medical interventions. There is, however, no universal standard approach that regulatory agencies consistently use to conduct benefit-risk assessment (BRA) for pharmaceuticals or medical devices, including for imaging technologies. Economics, health services research, and health outcomes research use quantitative approaches to elicit preferences of stakeholders, identify priorities, and model health conditions and health intervention effects. Challenges to BRA in medical devices are outlined, highlighting additional barriers in radiology. Three quantitative methods--multi-criteria decision analysis, health outcomes modeling and stated-choice survey--are assessed using criteria that are important in balancing benefits and risks of medical devices and imaging technologies. To be useful in regulatory BRA, quantitative methods need to: aggregate multiple benefits and risks, incorporate qualitative considerations, account for uncertainty, and make clear whose preferences/priorities are being used. Each quantitative method performs differently across these criteria and little is known about how BRA estimates and conclusions vary by approach. While no specific quantitative method is likely to be the strongest in all of the important areas, quantitative methods may have a place in BRA of medical devices and radiology. Quantitative BRA approaches have been more widely applied in medicines, with fewer BRAs in devices. Despite substantial differences in characteristics of pharmaceuticals and devices, BRA methods may be as applicable to medical devices and imaging technologies as they are to pharmaceuticals. Further research to guide the development and selection of quantitative BRA methods for medical devices and imaging technologies is needed.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pmid>25107866</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.acra.2014.05.006</doi><tpages>6</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier EISSN: 1878-4046
ispartof Academic radiology, 2014-09, Vol.21 (9), p.1138-1143
issn 1878-4046
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1552374483
source MEDLINE; Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals
subjects Decision Support Techniques
Diagnostic Imaging - methods
Health Services Research - methods
Humans
Risk Assessment - methods
title Applying quantitative benefit-risk analysis to aid regulatory decision making in diagnostic imaging: methods, challenges, and opportunities
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-24T11%3A43%3A02IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Applying%20quantitative%20benefit-risk%20analysis%20to%20aid%20regulatory%20decision%20making%20in%20diagnostic%20imaging:%20methods,%20challenges,%20and%20opportunities&rft.jtitle=Academic%20radiology&rft.au=Agapova,%20Maria&rft.date=2014-09-01&rft.volume=21&rft.issue=9&rft.spage=1138&rft.epage=1143&rft.pages=1138-1143&rft.eissn=1878-4046&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.acra.2014.05.006&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E1552374483%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1552374483&rft_id=info:pmid/25107866&rfr_iscdi=true