Dies ist eine Übersichtsseite mit Metadaten zu dieser wissenschaftlichen Arbeit. Der vollständige Artikel ist beim Verlag verfügbar.
Protocol for the development of an artificial intelligence extension to the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) 2022
4
Zitationen
17
Autoren
2023
Jahr
Abstract
1.2. Abstract Introduction AI interventions for health care are on the rise. Decisions about coverage and reimbursement are often informed by Health Technology Assessment (HTA) bodies, who rely on Health Economic Evaluations (HEEs) to estimate the value for money (cost effectiveness) of interventions. Transparent reporting of HEEs ensures they can be used for decision making. Reporting guidance exists to support this, such as the Consolidated Health Economic Reporting Standards (CHEERS) checklist. We aim to identify consensus about specific items should be reported by HEEs that evaluate AI interventions and, if such items are identified, to develop them into an extension to CHEERS: “CHEERS-AI”. Methods and analysis The project will have 4 phases: Phase 1 is a literature review to help identify potential AI-related reporting items. Phase 2 commences a Delphi process, with a series of surveys to elicit the importance of the potential AI-related reporting items. Phase 3 is a consensus-generation meeting to agree on the final extension items. Phase 4 is dissemination of the project’s outputs. Ethics and dissemination This study has received ethical approval from Newcastle University Ethics Committee (reference: 28568/2022). The findings will be available in as an open access article and disseminated through blogs, newsletters, and presentations. 1.3. Funding statement This study is supported by the Next Generation Health Technology Assessment (HTx) project. The HTx project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement Nº 825162. This dissemination reflects only the views of the authors and the Commission is not responsible for any use that may be made of the information it contains.
Ähnliche Arbeiten
Meta-analysis in clinical trials
1986 · 38.724 Zit.
Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement
2009 · 37.530 Zit.
PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation
2018 · 37.004 Zit.
The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials
2011 · 33.435 Zit.
RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials
2019 · 28.264 Zit.
Autoren
Institutionen
- National Institute for Health and Care Excellence(GB)
- Zorginstituut Nederland(NL)
- Syreon Research Institute (Hungary)
- University of Oulu(FI)
- London School of Economics and Political Science(GB)
- University of Birmingham(GB)
- University College London(GB)
- Utrecht University(NL)
- University of Oxford(GB)
- Cairo University(EG)