title: Prioritisation criteria for the selection of new diagnostic technologies for evaluation.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  Currently there is no framework for those involved in the identification, evaluation and prioritisation of new diagnostic technologies. Therefore we aimed to develop prioritisation criteria for the assessment of new diagnostic technologies, by gaining international consensus on not only which criteria should be used, but also their relative importance.
  
  
  METHODS
  A two-round Delphi process was used to generate consensus amongst an international panel of twenty-six experts on priority criteria for diagnostic health technology assessment. Participants represented a range of health care and related professions, including government, industry, health services and academia.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Based on the responses to the first questionnaire 18 criteria were placed into three categories: high, intermediate and moderate priority. For 16 of the 18 criteria, agreement with the categorisation of the criteria into the high, intermediate and moderate categories was high at > or = 70% (10 had agreement > or = 80%). A further questionnaire and panel discussion reduced the criteria to 16 and two categories; seven were classified as high priority and nine intermediate.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  This study proposes an objective structure of prioritisation criteria to use when assessing new diagnostic technologies, based on an expert consensus process. The value of these criteria is that no one single component should be used as the decisive driver for prioritisation of new diagnostic technologies for adoption in healthcare settings. Future studies should be directed at establishing the value of these prioritisation criteria across a range of healthcare settings.
authors.affiliation: Oxford Centre for Monitoring and Diagnosis, Department of Primary Health Care, University of Oxford, Oxford OX3 7LF, UK.
authors.forename: Annette
authors.initials: A
authors.lastname: Plüddemann
authors.forename: Carl
authors.initials: C
authors.lastname: Heneghan
authors.forename: Matthew
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Thompson
authors.forename: Nia
authors.initials: N
authors.lastname: Roberts
authors.forename: Nicholas
authors.initials: N
authors.lastname: Summerton
authors.forename: Luan
authors.initials: L
authors.lastname: Linden-Phillips
authors.forename: Claire
authors.initials: C
authors.lastname: Packer
authors.forename: Christopher P
authors.initials: CP
authors.lastname: Price
mesh_terms: D000328:Adult; D032921:Consensus; D003697:Delphi Technique; D019937:Diagnostic Techniques and Procedures; D019981:Health Care Sector; D006302:Health Services Research; D006801:Humans; D011795:Surveys and Questionnaires; D013673:Technology Assessment, Biomedical / Q000379:methods*
references.citation: J Health Serv Res Policy. 2007 Apr;12(2):80-5
references.pmid: 17407656
references.citation: BMJ. 2008 Mar 29;336(7646):683
references.pmid: 18369209
references.citation: BMJ. 2006 Aug 26;333(7565):417
references.pmid: 16908462
references.citation: Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2006 Spring;22(2):177-83
references.pmid: 16571193
references.citation: Health Policy. 2008 Aug;87(2):160-71
references.pmid: 18295925
references.citation: J Clin Epidemiol. 1998 Dec;51(12):1235-41
references.pmid: 10086815
references.citation: Radiology. 2002 Mar;222(3):593-4
references.pmid: 11867770
references.citation: Proteomics Clin Appl. 2008;2(10-11):1378-1385
references.pmid: 19325937
references.citation: Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2007 Summer;23(3):310-5
references.pmid: 17579932
references.citation: Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 1989;5(4):485-501
references.pmid: 2517499
references.citation: BMJ. 2006 May 6;332(7549):1089-92
references.pmid: 16675820
references.citation: Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 1997 Spring;13(2):144-85
references.pmid: 9194351