RESUMO
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Decision models for health technology assessment (HTA) are largely submitted to HTA agencies using commercial software, which has known limitations. The use of the open-source programming language R has been suggested because of its efficiency, transparency, reproducibility, and ability to consider complex analyses. However, its use in HTA remains limited. This qualitative study aimed to explore the main reasons for this slow uptake of R in HTA and identify tangible facilitators. METHODS: We undertook two semi-structured focus group discussions with 24 key stakeholders from government agencies, consultancy, pharmaceutical companies, and academia. Two 1.5-hour discussions reflected on barriers identified in a previous study and highlighted additional barriers. Discussions were recorded and semi-transcribed, and data were organized and summarized into key themes. RESULTS: Human resources constraints were identified as a key barrier, including a lack of training, prioritization and collaboration, and resistance to change. Another key barrier was the lack of acceptance, or clear guidance, around submissions in R by HTA agencies. Participants also highlighted a lack of communication around accepted packages and decision model structures, and between HTA agencies on standard decision modeling structures. CONCLUSIONS: There is a need for standardization, which can facilitate decision model sharing, coding homogeneity, and improved country adaptations. The creation of training materials and tailored workshops was identified as a key short-term facilitator. Increased communication and engagement of stakeholders could also facilitate the use of R by identifying needs and opportunities, encouraging HTA agencies to address structural barriers, and increasing incentives to use R.
RESUMO
OBJECTIVES: To systematically appraise the literature on the relative effectiveness of pharmacologic procedural distress management agents for children undergoing laceration repair. METHODS: Six databases were searched in August 2021, and the search was updated in January 2023. We included completed randomized or quasi-randomized trials involving ( a ) children younger than 15 years undergoing laceration repair in the emergency department; ( b ) randomization to at least one anxiolytic, sedative, and/or analgesic agent versus any comparator agent or placebo; ( c ) efficacy of procedural distress management measured on any scale. Secondary outcomes were pain during the procedure, administration acceptance, sedation duration, additional sedation, length of stay, and stakeholder satisfaction. Cochrane Collaboration's risk-of-bias tool assessed individual studies. Ranges and proportions summarized results where applicable. RESULTS: Among 21 trials (n = 1621 participants), the most commonly studied anxiolytic agents were midazolam, ketamine, and N 2 O. Oral midazolam, oral ketamine, and N 2 O were found to reduce procedural distress more effectively than their comparators in 4, 3, and 2 studies, respectively. Eight studies comparing routes, doses, or volumes of administration of the same agent led to indeterminate results. Meta-analysis was not performed because of heterogeneity in comparators, routes, and outcome measures across studies. CONCLUSIONS: Based on procedural distress reduction, this study favors oral midazolam and oral ketamine. However, this finding should be interpreted with caution because of heterogeneous comparators across studies and minor conflicting results. An optimal agent for procedural distress management cannot be recommended based on the limited evidence. Future research should seek to identify the minimal, essential measures of patient distress during pharmacologic anxiolysis and/or sedation in laceration repair to guide future trials and reviews.