ASERNIP-S: international trend setting

Scanning the horizon: a systematic literature review of methodologies

OBJECTIVES

Society is confronted with the rapid emergence of innovation in science and technology. To manage this, horizon scanning is being adopted globally to identify, assess and prioritise innovations and trends at an early stage of their development. This enables decision-makers to be better informed and to prepare for change. The aim of this paper is to systematically identify and evaluate horizon scanning methodologies employed in the healthcare and biomedical fields.

METHODS

A systematic literature review was performed using PubMed and Embase and was supplemented with grey literature searches (2008-2018). The principal methodologies used in horizon scanning were extracted.

RESULTS

Approximately 100 articles were summarised in a literature map. The search revealed many examples of horizon scanning across disciplines. Challenges, such as the need to refine prioritisation criteria, manage uncertainty inherent in the findings and improve the dissemination of identified issues, have been highlighted.

CONCLUSION

Horizon scanning, when performed appropriately, is a flexible and potentially reliable tool, with a wide variety of methods. Horizon scanning can inform and influence decision-making, through identifying opportunities and challenges, from an organisational to an international level. Further research to identify the most effective methodologies available would add depth to this landscape and enable the evolution of best practice to most efficiently anticipate novel developments and innovations.

IDENTIFYING AND SELECTING NEW PROCEDURES FOR HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT: A DECADE OF NICE EXPERIENCE IN THE UNITED KINGDOM

Objectives: The aim of this study was to analyze the experience of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) in identifying new procedures entering the United Kingdom (UK) healthcare system, for assessment and publication of recommendations on their use. This system is designed to provide guidance in an area where regulation is lacking worldwide.

Methods: Retrospective analysis of all procedures notified to the Interventional Procedures Programme (NICE) between 2002 and 2012. Notifications were analyzed year by year for their source (who notified them), clinical specialties involved, and whether guidance was subsequently published.

Results: A total of 1,094 procedures were notified by clinicians (51 percent), and by others, including hospitals (6 percent), horizon scanners (5 percent), patients (4 percent), private health insurers (4 percent), and medical device manufacturers (3 percent). Guidance was published on 44 percent of procedures notified to the program. There was a decrease in the numbers of procedures notified during 2003–2012 (p = .049). There were notifications across all specialties, with the largest numbers in general surgery (125), urology (104), orthopedics (99), interventional radiology (93), cardiology (82), and obstetrics and gynecology (82).

Conclusions: The “open” NICE Web portal allows anyone to notify new procedures, aiming to maximize the opportunity of identifying all those procedures entering clinical practice. This has resulted in identification of large numbers of procedures from across the whole range of medical specialties. The fact that similar proportions of procedures notified from diverse sources have been selected for assessment and publication of practice recommendations suggests that this inclusive approach is worthwhile.

Strategies to improve clinical research in surgery through international collaboration

More than 235 million patients undergo surgery every year worldwide, but less than 1% are enrolled in surgical clinical trials--few of which are international collaborations. Several levels of action are needed to improve this situation. International research collaborations in surgery between developed and developing countries could encourage capacity building and quality improvement, and mutually enhance care for patients with surgical disorders. Low-income and middle-income countries increasingly report much the same range of surgical diseases as do high-income countries (eg, cancer, cardiovascular disease, and the surgical sequelae of metabolic syndrome); collaboration is therefore of mutual interest. Large multinational trials that cross cultures and levels of socioeconomic development might have faster results and wider applicability than do single-country trials. Surgeons educated in research methods, and aided by research networks and trial centres, are needed to foster these international collaborations. Barriers to collaboration could be overcome by adoption of global strategies for regulation, health insurance, ethical approval, and indemnity coverage for doctors.

The darker side of randomized trials: recruitment challenges

Randomized trials are thought to provide optimal evidence if carried out correctly. Their application to important questions is the best guide to clinical decision-making. However, these trials are expensive to complete and have a variety of challenges in design and application. This article will review some of the factors that affect our ability to recruit patients into randomized controlled trials for conditions that may be treated surgically by different methods or for conditions for which both nonsurgical and surgical treatments exist.

Predictors of creatinine rise post-endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair

BACKGROUND

Endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair involves manipulation of the aorta around the renal arteries. Fenestrated grafts involve the direct cannulation, stenting and injecting of contrast into the renal arteries. These procedures may be associated with an acute post-operative creatinine rise.

METHODS

We retrospectively examined data from all endovascular aortic repairs at our institution from 2005 to 2009, where contrast dosage had been recorded. Renal impairment was defined as a 25% increase in creatinine during the 5-day postoperative period. Univariable analysis was undertaken for a number of likely predictors, including: age, contrast dosage, preoperative creatinine, graft type (fenestrated or standard), diabetes mellitus, hypertension, hypercholesterolaemia, ischaemic heart disease, aspirin therapy, statins therapy, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug use, preoperative N-acetyl-cysteine and intravenous pre-hydration. Multivariable analysis was then applied to variables with a univariable P-value of < 0.05.

RESULTS

We identified 106 consecutive cases, with complete data for 102. Twenty per cent of patients developed renal impairment (22/102). Contrast dose (P = 0.043) and fenestrated grafts (P = 0.006) were identified as significant risk factors for post-operative creatinine increase (P = 0.043). Multivariable analysis demonstrated that fenestrated grafts were a risk factor independent of contrast dosage (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients who received a fenestration graft (P < 0.01) and increased contrast dose (P < 0.05) were at a significant increased risk of a 25% post-operative creatinine rise. The risk of fenestration grafts persisted when multivariable regression was performed to control for contrast dosage (P < 0.05). Other variables investigated were not found to be significant in this study.

Challenges in evaluating surgical innovation

Research on surgical interventions is associated with several methodological and practical challenges of which few, if any, apply only to surgery. However, surgical evaluation is especially demanding because many of these challenges coincide. In this report, the second of three on surgical innovation and evaluation, we discuss obstacles related to the study design of randomised controlled trials and non-randomised studies assessing surgical interventions. We also describe the issues related to the nature of surgical procedures-for example, their complexity, surgeon-related factors, and the range of outcomes. Although difficult, surgical evaluation is achievable and necessary. Solutions tailored to surgical research and a framework for generating evidence on which to base surgical practice are essential.