Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Health Technology Assessment

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Medical Imaging and Radiotherapy Research: Skills and Strategies

  • 1556 Accesses

Abstract

Diagnostic imaging and radiotherapy are rapidly evolving fields. Technological advances and changes in techniques for imaging or treatment need to be accompanied by robust assessment of the impact and cost-effectiveness of any new approach. Insight into the research design approaches that are useful for assessing new diagnostic imaging technologies and radiotherapy interventions is provided in this chapter. Methods to assess the accuracy of imaging modalities, the basics of randomized controlled trial design and cost-effectiveness assessment and methods to undertake systematic reviews and meta-analyses are included. The chapter focuses on the strengths of the methods and also the limitations and potential areas for bias that may limit the quality of the study and the strength of any conclusions drawn. The chapter does refer the reader to useful websites for further guidance and useful resources relevant to health technology assessment.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 79.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 99.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Fineberg HV, Bauman R, Sosman M. Computerised cranial tomography: effect on diagnostic and therapeutic plans. JAMA. 1977;238:224–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Fryback DG, Thornbury JR. The efficacy of diagnostic imaging. Med Decis Mak. 1991;11:88–94.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Mackenzie R, Dixon AK. Measuring the effects of imaging: an evaluative framework. Clin Radiol. 1995;50:513–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Bothwell LE, Greene JA, Podolsky SH, Jones DS. Assessing the gold standard-lessons from the history of RCTs. N Engl J Med. 2016;374:2175–81.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Robinson PJA. Radiology’s Achilles’ heel: error and variation in the interpretation of the Röntgen image. Br J Radiol. 1997;70:1085–98.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Brealey S, Scally AJ. Methodological approaches to evaluating the practice of radiographers’ interpretation of images: a review. Radiography. 2008;14(1):e46–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Sackett DL, Haynes RB. The architecture of diagnostic research. In: Knottnerus JA, editor. The evidence base of clinical diagnosis. London: BMJ Books; 2002. p. 19–38.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Sackett DL, Haynes RB. Evidence base of clinical diagnosis: the architecture of diagnostic research. BMJ. 2002;324:539–41.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Cohen JF, Korevaar DA, Altman DG, Bruns DE, Gatsonis CA, Hooft L, Irwig L, Levine D, Reitsma JB, de Vet HCW, Bossuyt PMM. STARD 2015 guidelines for reporting diagnostic accuracy studies: explanation and elaboration. BMJ Open. 2016;6(11):e012799.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Whiting P, Westwood M, Rutjes AWS, et al. Evaluation of QUADAS, a tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2006;6:9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Kelly S, Berry E, Roderick P, et al. The identification of bias in studies of the diagnostic performance of imaging modalities. Br J Radiol. 1997;70:1028–35.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Deeks J. Systematic reviews of evaluations of diagnostic and screening tests. In: Egger M, Smith GD, Altman G, editors. Systematic reviews in health care: meta-analysis in context. London: BMJ Publishing Group; 2001. p. 248–82.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  13. Hajjan-Tilaki K. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis for medical diagnostic test evaluation. Caspian J Intern Med. 2013;4(2):627–35.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Habbema JDF, Eijkemans R, Krijnen P, et al. Analysis of data on the accuracy of diagnostic tests. In: Knottnerus JA, editor. The evidence base of clinical diagnosis. London: BMJ Books; 2002. p. 117–44.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Brealey S, Scally AJ. Bias in plain film reading performance studies. Br J Radiol. 2001;74:307–16.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Cohen J. A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educ Psychol Meas. 1960;20:37–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Lee W. Technology assessment: vigilance required. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2008;70(3):652–3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Kunz R, Oxman AD. The unpredictability paradox: review of empirical comparisons of randomised and non-randomised clinical trials. Br Med J. 1998;317:1185–90.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Hróbjartsson A, Emanuelsson F, Skou Thomsen AS, Hilden J, Brorson S. Bias due to lack of patient blinding in clinical trials. A systematic review of trials randomizing patients to blind and nonblind sub-studies. Int J Epidemiol. 2014;43(4):1272–83.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network Health Improvement Scotland. SIGN 50: a guideline developers handbook. Quick Reference Guide. 2015.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Herst PM, Bennett NC, Sutherland AE, Peszynski RI, Paterson DB, Jasperse ML. Prophylactic use of Mepitel Film prevents radiation-induced moist desquamation in an intra-patient randomised controlled clinical trial of 78 breast cancer patients. Radiother Oncol. 2014;110(1):137–43.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Goldsmith C, Haviland J, Tsang Y, Sydenham M, Yarnold J. Large breast size as a risk factor for late adverse effects of breast radiotherapy: is residual dose inhomogeneity, despite 3D treatment planning and delivery, the main explanation? Radiother Oncol. 2011;100(2):236–40.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Noble-Adams R. Radiation induced reactions 2: development of a measurement tool. Br J Nurs. 1996;8(18):1208–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Noble-Adams R. Radiation induced reactions 3: evaluating the RISRAS. Br J Nurs. 1999;8(19):1305–12.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Radiation Therapy Oncology Group. Cooperative Group Common Toxicity Criteria. Minimize. 2019. https://www.rtog.org/ResearchAssociates/AdverseEventReporting/CooperativeGroupCommonToxicityCriteria.aspx.

  26. Neal A, Torr M, Helyer S, et al. Correlation of breast dose heterogeneity with breast size using 3D CT planning and dose volume histograms. Radiother Oncol. 1995;34(3):210–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Jadad A. Randomised controlled trials: a user’s guide. London: BMJ Books/Wiley; 2004.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Moss S, Thomas I, Evans A, Thomas B, Johns L. Randomised controlled trial of mammographic screening in women from age 40: results of screening in the first 10 years. Br J Cancer. 2005;92(5):949–54.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Hendrick RE, Smith RA, Rutledge JH, et al. Benefit of screening mammography in women aged 40–49: a new meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. 1997;1997(22):87–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Probst H, Griffiths S. Increasing the work speed of radiographers: the effect on the accuracy of a setup of a complex shaped cranial field, part of a matched cranio spinal junction. Radiother Oncol. 1996;38(3):241–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Norrman E, Persliden J. A factorial experiment on image quality and radiation dose. Radiat Prot Dosim. 2005;114(1–3):246–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Probst H, Dodwell D, Gray JC, et al. An evaluation of the accuracy of semi-permanent skin marks for breast cancer irradiation. Radiography. 2006;12(3):186–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Cancer Research UK. Breast cancer incidence 2018. Accessed May 2019. https://www.cancerresearchuk.org/health-professional/cancer-statistics/statistics-by-cancer-type/breast-cancer/incidence-invasive#heading-One.

  34. Roberts C, Torgerson D. Understanding controlled trials randomisation methods in controlled trials. Br Med J. 1998;317:1301.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Torgerson DJ. Contamination in trials: is cluster randomisation the answer? Br Med J. 2001;322:355–7.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Kennedy ADM, Torgerson DJ, Campbell MK, Grant AM. Subversion of allocation concealment in a randomised controlled trial: a historical case study. Trials. 2017;18(1):204.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  37. Torgerson DJ, Roberts C. Understanding controlled trials randomisation methods: concealment. BMJ. 1999;319(7206):375–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. Pocock SJ. The size of a clinical trial. Clinical trials: a practical approach. Chichester: Wiley; 2008. p. 123–41.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Probst H, Dodwell D, Gray J, Holmes M. Radiotherapy for breast carcinoma: an evaluation of the relationship between the central lung depth and respiratory symptoms. Radiography. 2005;11(1):3–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Corrie P, Shaw J, Harris R. Rate limiting factors in recruitment of patients to clinical trials in cancer research: descriptive study. Br Med J. 2003;327:320–1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Welton A, Vickers M, Cooper J, et al. Is recruitment more difficult with a placebo arm in randomised controlled trials? A quasi-randomised, interview based study. Br Med J. 1999;318:1114–7.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Hancock BW, Aitken M, Radstone C, et al. Why don’t cancer patients get entered into clinical trials? Experience of the Sheffield Lymphoma Group’s collaboration in British National Lymphoma Investigation studies. BMJ. 1997;314(7073):36.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  43. Mitchell G, Abernethy AP, Investigators of the Queensland Case Conferences Trial, Palliative Care Trial. A comparison of methodologies from two longitudinal community-based randomized controlled trials of similar interventions in palliative care: what worked and what did not? J Palliat Med. 2005;8(6):1226–37.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Treweek S, Lockhart P, Pitkethly M, Cook JA, Kjeldstrøm M, Johansen M, et al. Methods to improve recruitment to randomised controlled trials: cochrane systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ Open. 2013;3(2):e002360.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  45. Torgerson DJ, Sibbald B. Understanding controlled trials. What is a patient preference trial. BMJ. 1998;316(7128):360.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  46. Torgerson DJ, Roland M. What is Zelen’s design? BMJ. 1998;316(7131):606.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  47. Dumville JC, Torgerson DJ, Hewitt CE. Reporting attrition in randomised controlled trials. BMJ. 2006;332(7547):969–71.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  48. Pocock SJ. Protocol deviations. Clinical Trials: a practical approach. Chichester: Wiley; 2008. p. 176–86.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Hollis S, Campbell F. What is meant by intention to treat analysis? Survey of published randomised controlled trials. BMJ. 1999;319(7211):670–4.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  50. Altman DG, Bland JM. Missing data. BMJ. 2007;334(7590):424.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  51. Fergusson D, Aaron SD, Guyatt G, et al. Post-randomisation exclusions: the intention to treat principle and excluding patients from analysis. BMJ. 2002;325(7365):652–4.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  52. Piccart-Gebhart MJ, Procter M, Leyland-Jones B, et al. Trastuzumab after adjuvant chemotherapy in HER2-positive breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2005;353(16):1659–72.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Smith I, Procter M, Gelber RD, et al. 2-year follow-up of trastuzumab after adjuvant chemotherapy in HER2-positive breast cancer: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2007;369(9555):29–36.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. National Institute for Clinical Excellence. Trastuzumab for the adjuvant treatment of early-stage HER2-positive breast cancer. London: NHS Department of Health; 2006 NICE Technology Appraisal Guidance 107.

    Google Scholar 

  55. Drummond MF, O’Brien B, Stoddart GL, et al. Basic types of economic evaluation: methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1997. p. 6–26.

    Google Scholar 

  56. Palmer S, Byford S, Raftery J. Economics notes: types of economic evaluation. BMJ. 1999;318(7194):1349.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  57. Amparo O, Santaballa A, Munarriz B, et al. Cost-benefit analysis of a follow-up program in patients with breast cancer: a randomized prospective study. Breast J. 2007;13(6):571–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Shah C, Ward MC, Tendulkar RD, Cherian S, Vicini F, Singer ME. Cost and cost-effectiveness of image guided partial breast irradiation in comparison to hypofractionated whole breast irradiation. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2019;103(2):397–402.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. Undertaking systematic reviews of research on effectiveness: CRD’s guidance for those carrying out or commissioning reviews. Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York; 2001. Centre for Reviews and Dissemination Report 4.

    Google Scholar 

  60. Cruz Rivera S, Kyte DG, Aiyegbusi OL, Keeley TJ, Calvert MJ. Assessing the impact of healthcare research: a systematic review of methodological frameworks. PLoS Med. 2017;14(8):e1002370. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1002370.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  61. Greenhalgh T, Peacock R. Effectiveness and efficiency of search methods in systematic reviews of complex evidence: audit of primary sources. BMJ. 2005;331(7524):1064–5.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  62. Hopewell S, McDonald S, Clarke M, et al. Grey literature in meta-analyses of randomised trials of healthcare interventions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007;(2):MR000010.

    Google Scholar 

  63. Hopewell S, Clarke M, Lefebvre C, et al. Handsearching versus electronic searching to identify reports of randomised trials. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007;(2):MR000001.

    Google Scholar 

  64. Egger M, Zellweger-Zahner T. Language bias in randomised controlled trials published in English and German. Lancet. 1997;350(9074):326.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Moher D, Fortin P. Completeness of reporting of trials published in languages other than English: implications for conduct and reporting of systematic reviews. Lancet. 1996;347(8998):363.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Moher D, Pham B, Klassen TP, et al. What contributions do languages other than English make on the results of meta-analyses. J Clin Epidemiol. 2000;53(9):964–72.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Juni P, Holenstein F, Sterne J, Bartlett C, et al. Direction and impact of language bias in meta-analyses of controlled trials: empirical study. Int J Epidemiol. 2002;31(1):115–23.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Whiting P, Rutjes A, Reitsma J, et al. The development of QUADAS: a tool for the quality assessment of studies of diagnostic accuracy included in systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2003;3(1):25.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  69. Whiting PF, Rutjes AWS, Westwood ME, Mallett S, Deeks JJ, Reitsma JB, Leeflang MM, Sterne JAC, Bossuyt PMM. QUADAS-2: a revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies. Ann Intern Med. 2011;155(8):529–36.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. Jadad RA, Moore D, Carroll C, et al. Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: is blinding necessary? Control Clin Trials. 1996;17:1–12.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. Higgins JPT, Green S, editors. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]: The Cochrane Collaboration; 2011. http://handbook.cochrane.org.

  72. Sterne JA, Hernán MA, Reeves BC, Savović J, Berkman ND, Viswanathan M, et al. ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions. BMJ. 2016;355:i4919.

    Google Scholar 

  73. Moja LP, Telaro E, D’Amico R, et al. Assessment of methodological quality of primary studies by systematic reviews: results of the meta-quality cross sectional study. BMJ. 2005;330(7499):1053.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  74. Probst H, Bragg C, Dodwell D, Green D, Hart J. A systematic review of methods to immobilise breast tissue during adjuvant breast irradiation. Radiography. 2014;20(1):70–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. Egger M, Smith GD, Phillips AN. Meta-analysis: principles and procedures. BMJ. 1997;315(7121):1533–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  76. Huedo-Medina TB, Sanchez-Mecca J, Bottela J, et al. Assessing heterogeneity in meta-analysis: Q statistic or I2 index? Psychol Methods. 2006;11(2):193–206.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  77. Egger M, Davey SG, Schneider M, et al. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ. 1997;315(7109):629–34.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  78. The benefits and harms of breast cancer screening: an independent review. Lancet. 2012;380(9855):1778–86.

    Google Scholar 

  79. Mallett S, Deeks JJ, Halligan S, et al. Systematic reviews of diagnostic tests in cancer: review of methods and reporting. BMJ. 2006;333(7565):413.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  80. Felson DT. Bias in meta-analytic research. J Clin Epidemiol. 1992;45(8):885–92.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  81. David M, Cook D, Eastwood S, et al. Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUOROM statement. Lancet. 1999;354:1896–900.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Radiotherapy and Oncology, College of Health, Wellbeing and Life Sciences, Sheffield Hallam University, Sheffield, UK

    Heidi Probst

  2. Diagnostic Radiography and Imaging, School of Health and Social Work, University of Hertfordshire, Hatfield, Hertfordshire, UK

    Aarthi Ramlaul

Authors
  1. Heidi Probst
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Aarthi Ramlaul
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Heidi Probst .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Diagnostic Radiography and Imaging, School of Health and Social Work, University of Hertfordshire, Hatfield, Hertfordshire, UK

    Aarthi Ramlaul

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Probst, H., Ramlaul, A. (2020). Health Technology Assessment. In: Ramlaul, A. (eds) Medical Imaging and Radiotherapy Research: Skills and Strategies. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-37944-5_12

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-37944-5_12

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-37943-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-37944-5

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation