Abstract
Objectives To identify which international HTA agencies are undertaking evaluations of medical tests, summarise commonalities and differences in methodological approach, and highlight examples of best practice.
Methods A methodological review incorporating: systematic identification of HTA guidance documents mentioning evaluation of tests; identification of key contributing organisations and abstraction of approaches to all essential HTA steps; summary of similarities and differences between organisations; and identification of important emergent themes which define the current state of the art and frontiers where further development is needed.
Results Seven key organisations were identified from 216 screened. The main themes were: elucidation of claims of test benefits; attitude to direct and indirect evidence of clinical effectiveness (including evidence linkage); searching; quality assessment; and health economic evaluation. With the exception of dealing with test accuracy data, approaches were largely based on general approaches to HTA with few test-specific modifications. Elucidation of test claims and attitude to direct and indirect evidence are where we identified the biggest dissimilarities in approach.
Conclusions There is consensus on some aspects of HTA of tests, such as dealing with test accuracy, and examples of good practice which HTA organisations new to test evaluation can emulate. The focus on test accuracy contrasts with universal acknowledgement that it is not a sufficient evidence base for test evaluation. There are frontiers where methodological development is urgently required, notably integrating direct and indirect evidence and standardising approaches to evidence linkage.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This work was funded by the Medical Research Council (grant number MR/T025328/1).
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
This work was funded by the Medical Research Council (grant number MR/T025328/1).
Conflict of interests None
Data Availability
All data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors
