NLM Gateway
A service of the U.S. National Institutes of Health
Your Entrance to
Resources from the
National Library of Medicine
    Home      Term Finder      Limits/Settings      Search Details      History      My Locker        About      Help      FAQ    
Skip Navigation Side Barintended for web crawlers only

How a national agency can brief health professionals and government on emerging surgical procedures.

Lhermite I, Moquet M; International Society of Technology Assessment in Health Care. Meeting.

Annu Meet Int Soc Technol Assess Health Care Int Soc Technol Assess Health Care Meet. 2002; 18: abstract no. 183.

Nomenclature Department, ANAES, Paris, France

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: New surgical procedures develop within the bounds of the medical specialty that promotes them. Of what benefit to the community is their evaluation by a national agency? We addressed this issue by describing ANAES' evaluation of 5 neurosurgical procedures. Four are emerging intracranial endoscopic procedures replacing open field surgery: (1) diagnostic endoscopy with or without biopsy; (2) ventriculostomy; (3) neurotomy; (4) non traumatic intraventricular haemorrhage evacuation. The fifth is a procedure (uni/bilateral skull flap for decompression) attracting renewed interest as anaesthesia techniques improve. They were evaluated in view to their inclusion in the new French coding system. METHODS: Rapid assessment method involving selection of evidence-based (EB) data, consultation of foreign code lists, survey of professional opinion by mail and a vote by a panel of experts. RESULTS: Procedures 1 & 2: EB-data with a poor level of evidence; listed in Australia's Medical Benefice Schedule; survey results in favour of inclusion in the new coding system. The panel of experts voted for inclusion with however restrictions on conditions of use. Procedures 3 & 4: Information lacking; survey results inconclusive. The panel restricted the procedures to developmental use. Procedure 5: EB-data with a good level of evidence but discordant results; listed in the US, Australian and Belgian classifications; survey results in favour of inclusion. The panel voted for developmental use only and re-evaluation in 5 years. DISCUSSION: (1) By submitting the scientific evidence to health professionals, ANAES urges them to review their practices in its light. In the above examples, the level of evidence for efficacy differed strikingly among procedures. Expert opinion based on professional experience proved to be in agreement with this evidence. (2) By obtaining a consensus, ANAES is in a position to be able to advise government on the value of emerging procedures.

Publication Types:
  • Meeting Abstracts
Keywords:
  • Australia
  • Consensus Development Conferences, NIH as Topic
  • Data Collection
  • Evaluation Studies
  • Expert Testimony
  • Federal Government
  • Government
  • Government Agencies
  • Health Personnel
  • Internationality
  • Referral and Consultation
  • United States Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality
  • methods
  • hsrmtgs
Other ID:
  • GWHSR0003120
UI: 102274799

From Meeting Abstracts




Contact Us
U.S. National Library of Medicine |  National Institutes of Health |  Health & Human Services
Privacy |  Copyright |  Accessibility |  Freedom of Information Act |  USA.gov