4.6 Article

How to Ease the Pain of Taking a Diagnostic Point of Care Test to the Market: A Framework for Evidence Development

期刊

MICROMACHINES
卷 11, 期 3, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/mi11030291

关键词

point of care; medical device; diagnostic; care pathway analysis; value proposition; evidence generation; preparation for marketing; adoption; implementation

资金

  1. National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Newcastle In Vitro Diagnostics Co-operative
  2. NIHR MedTech In Vitro Diagnostic Co-operatives scheme [MIC-2016-014]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Bringing a diagnostic point of care test (POCT) to a healthcare market can be a painful experience as it requires the manufacturer to meet considerable technical, financial, managerial, and regulatory challenges. In this opinion article we propose a framework for developing the evidence needed to support product development, marketing, and adoption. We discuss each step in the evidence development pathway from the invention phase to the implementation of a new POCT in the healthcare system. We highlight the importance of articulating the value propositions and documenting the care pathway. We provide guidance on how to conduct care pathway analysis as little has been published on this. We summarize the clinical, economic and qualitative studies to be considered for developing evidence, and provide useful links to relevant software, on-line applications, websites, and give practical advice. We also provide advice on patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE), and on product management. Our aim is to help device manufacturers to understand the concepts and terminology used in evaluation of in vitro diagnostics (IVDs) so that they can communicate effectively with evaluation methodologists, statisticians, and health economists. Manufacturers of medical tests and devices can use the proposed framework to plan their evidence development strategy in alignment with device development, applications for regulatory approval, and publication.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据