Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 10 de 10
Filtrar
1.
Gac. sanit. (Barc., Ed. impr.) ; 31(4): 336-341, jul.-ago. 2017. tab
Artigo em Espanhol | IBECS | ID: ibc-164378

RESUMO

La colaboración European Network for Health Technology Assessment (EUnetHTA) es la red colaborativa de agencias y organismos públicos de evaluación de tecnologías sanitarias de la Unión Europea. En este marco se han elaborado guías metodológicas y procedimientos comunes que han dado lugar al denominado HTA Core Model®. La Agencia de Evaluación de Tecnologías Sanitarias de Andalucía (AETSA), miembro de la Red Española de Agencias de Evaluación de Tecnologías Sanitarias y Prestaciones del Sistema Nacional de Salud, y de la colaboración EUnetHTA, participa en la recién iniciada Tercera Acción Conjunta (Joint Action 3) de EUnetHTA (2016-2019). Adicionalmente, la AETSA cuenta con una línea de evaluación de medicamentos. Parte del trabajo se integra en la elaboración de informes de posicionamiento terapéutico (IPT) sobre fármacos que han recibido recientemente la autorización de comercialización, que coordina la Agencia Española de Medicamentos y Productos Sanitarios. Como apoyo a este trabajo, la AETSA elabora «Informes de síntesis de evidencia: medicamentos», en los que se realiza una evaluación comparada de la eficacia y la seguridad de los fármacos de los que va a elaborarse un IPT. La AETSA ha diseñado un proceso para la elaboración de dichos informes, basado en el HTA Core Model® y en las guías metodológicas de EUnetHTA. En este trabajo se describe la metodología empleada en la elaboración de la guía realizada por la AETSA para la elaboración de estos informes y se presentan los distintos apartados en los que esta se estructura (AU)


The European network for Health Technology Assessment (EUnetHTA) is the network of public health technology assessment (HTA) agencies and entities from across the EU. In this context, the HTA Core Model®, has been developed. The Andalusian Agency for Health Technology Assessment (AETSA) is a member of the Spanish HTA Network and EUnetHTA collaboration In addition, AETSA participates in the new EUnetHTA Joint Action 3 (JA, 2016–2019). Furthermore, AETSA works on pharmaceutical assessments. Part of this work involves drafting therapeutic positioning reports (TPRs) on drugs that have recently been granted marketing authorisation, which is overseen by the Spanish Agency of Medicines and Medical Devices (AEMPS). AETSA contributes by drafting ‘Evidence synthesis reports: pharmaceuticals’ in which a rapid comparative efficacy and safety assessment is performed for drugs for which a TPR will be created. To create this type of report, AETSA follows its own methodological guideline based on EUnetHTA guidelines and the HTA Core Model®. In this paper, the methodology that AETSA has developed to create the guideline for ‘Evidence synthesis reports: pharmaceuticals’ is described. The structure of the report itself is also presented (AU)


Assuntos
Humanos , Aprovação de Drogas/estatística & dados numéricos , Avaliação de Medicamentos/métodos , Efeitos Colaterais e Reações Adversas Relacionados a Medicamentos/epidemiologia , Padrões de Prática Médica , Retirada de Medicamento Baseada em Segurança/estatística & dados numéricos , Segurança do Paciente/estatística & dados numéricos
2.
Rev. cuba. ortop. traumatol ; 31(1): 12-23, ene.-jun. 2017. ilus
Artigo em Espanhol | LILACS, CUMED | ID: biblio-901399

RESUMO

Objetivo: Desarrollar criterios para determinar las indicaciones apropiadas de la prótesis invertida de hombro en artropatías por lesión del manguito rotador y las variables determinantes de este proceso. Método: Se utilizó un panel de expertos mediante metodología RAND/UCLA con 9 expertos en Traumatología, 2 en Rehabilitación y 1 en Reumatología, que evaluaron 192 casos hipotéticos. Cada experto puntuó mediante una escala del 1 (extremadamente inadecuado) al 9 (extremadamente apropiado). Resultados: 22 casos hipotéticos fueron considerados adecuados. El dolor, limitación funcional, necesidad funcional, defecto glenoideo, edad, artrosis y posibilidad de reparación del manguito rotador son variables determinantes para indicar la implantación de una prótesis invertida de hombro. Conclusiones: El método RAND/UCLA es útil para el estudio de las indicaciones de procedimientos como la prótesis invertida de hombro, y proporciona una lista de las indicaciones adecuadas. Las variables requieren ser validadas mediante estudios prospectivos o revisión de historias clínicas(AU)


Objective: Develop criteria to determine the appropriate indications of inverted shoulder prosthesis in arthropathies due to rotator cuff injury and the variables that determine this process. Method: A panel of experts assessed 192 hypothetical cases using RAND/UCLA methodology. Nine Traumatology experts, two Rehabilitation experts and one Rheumatology expert comprised this panel. Each expert scored on a scale from 1 (extremely unsuitable) to 9 (extremely appropriate). Results: 22 hypothetical cases were considered adequate. Pain, functional limitation, functional need, glenoid defect, age, osteoarthritis and possibility of rotator cuff repair are determining as variables to indicate the implantation of an inverted shoulder prosthesis. Conclusions: The RAND/UCLA method is useful for the study of procedure indications such as the inverted shoulder prosthesis, and it provides a list of suitable indications. Prospective studies or medical record reviews should validate these variables(AU)


Objectif: Proposer les critères définissant l'indication appropriée de prothèse d'épaule inversée dans les arthropathies pour lésion de la coiffe des rotateurs, et les variables déterminant ce processus. Méthodes: Un panel d'experts, compris par 9 traumatologues, 2 kinésithérapeutes et 1 rhumatologue, a été utilisé pour évaluer 192 cas hypothétiques par la méthode RAND/UCLA. Chaque expert a fait son évaluation sur une échelle de 1 (extrêmement inapproprié) à 9 (extrêmement approprié). Résultats: Vingt-deux cas hypothétiques ont été considérés comme appropriés. Des variables telles que la douleur, la limitation fonctionnelle, la nécessité fonctionnelle, le défaut glénoïdien, l'âge, l'arthrose et la possibilité de correction de la coiffe des rotateurs, ont déterminé l'indication de prothèse d'épaule inversée. Conclusions: La méthode RAND-UCLA est utile pour l'étude des indications de procédés, tels que la prothèse d'épaule inversée, et procure une liste des indications appropriées. Il faut valider les variables avec des études prospectives ou une révision des dossiers médicaux(AU)


Assuntos
Humanos , Fatores de Risco , Lesões do Manguito Rotador/etiologia , Prótese de Ombro , Artropatias/cirurgia
3.
Gac Sanit ; 31(4): 336-341, 2017.
Artigo em Espanhol | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-28062129

RESUMO

The European network for Health Technology Assessment (EUnetHTA) is the network of public health technology assessment (HTA) agencies and entities from across the EU. In this context, the HTA Core Model®, has been developed. The Andalusian Agency for Health Technology Assessment (AETSA) is a member of the Spanish HTA Network and EUnetHTA collaboration In addition, AETSA participates in the new EUnetHTA Joint Action 3 (JA, 2016-2019). Furthermore, AETSA works on pharmaceutical assessments. Part of this work involves drafting therapeutic positioning reports (TPRs) on drugs that have recently been granted marketing authorisation, which is overseen by the Spanish Agency of Medicines and Medical Devices (AEMPS). AETSA contributes by drafting "Evidence synthesis reports: pharmaceuticals" in which a rapid comparative efficacy and safety assessment is performed for drugs for which a TPR will be created. To create this type of report, AETSA follows its own methodological guideline based on EUnetHTA guidelines and the HTA Core Model®. In this paper, the methodology that AETSA has developed to create the guideline for "Evidence synthesis reports: pharmaceuticals" is described. The structure of the report itself is also presented.


Assuntos
Avaliação de Medicamentos/normas , Avaliação da Tecnologia Biomédica/normas , União Europeia , Fidelidade a Diretrizes
4.
Arch Esp Urol ; 68(2): 142-51, 2015 Mar.
Artigo em Espanhol | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-25774821

RESUMO

OBJECTIVES: To perform a systematic bibliographic review of the literature assessing the quality of life and complications of robotic prostatectomy (RP) versus low-dose rate brachytherapy (LDR-BT) in patients with localized prostate cancer (PCa). PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane, Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, Emergency Care Research Institute, Web of Knowledge, Technology Evaluation Center, Clinical Evidence, Uptodate, Hayes and Drug Effectiveness Review Project. Systematic reviews and prospective studies comparing RP to LDR-BT in men with localized PCa were included. The primary outcome was quality of life and the secondary endpoint complications rate. RESULTS: Three systematic reviews and four prospective studies were included. RP showed better results than LDR-BT for SF-12-physical domain (p<0.01) and faster recovery to pre-operative scores. LDR-BT improved scores for UCLAPCI questionnaire-urinary and sexual domains compared to RP during the first three years of follow-up (p<0.001). First postoperative year urinary incontinence rate was favorable for LDR-BT (88.0% vs 84.5%, p<0.001). No differences for intestinal function scores for the first three post-intervention years (p = 0.02) were found. Major complications of LDR-BT were gastrointestinal and genitourinary toxicity, although pooled weighted events rate of the studies was not analyzed. CONCLUSIONS: LDR-BT improves quality of life in terms of urinary and sexual function in patients with localized PCa vs RP during the first three years post-intervention.


Assuntos
Braquiterapia , Prostatectomia/métodos , Neoplasias da Próstata/radioterapia , Neoplasias da Próstata/cirurgia , Qualidade de Vida , Procedimentos Cirúrgicos Robóticos , Humanos , Masculino , Estudos Prospectivos , Neoplasias da Próstata/patologia
10.
Metas enferm ; 12(7): 28-32, sept. 2009. tab, ilus
Artigo em Espanhol | IBECS | ID: ibc-88908

RESUMO

Objetivo: identificar errores en la administración de vacunas así como situacionesrelacionadas con la similitud de los envases que pudieran dar lugar a errores, enun distrito del Servicio Andaluz de Salud en el año 2007. Los resultados del estudiose utilizaron en una estrategia de difusión, tanto interna como externa.Material y método: estudio descriptivo en el Distrito Sanitario Aljarafe (Sevilla) delServicio Andaluz de Salud (SAS). Se recopiló la información sobre notificacionesde errores en la vacunación durante el año 2007. Se analizaron las similitudesen la denominación y etiquetado entre las vacunas disponibles en los centros.Resultados: se detectaron ocho errores reales por la administración de la vacunaantineumocócica 23-valente en lugar de la vacuna antigripal. Estos errores se debierona la gran similitud en el etiquetado. Se identificaron otros 15 situacionesque pueden conducir a errores relacionadas con el diseño y la denominación. Ladifusión interna se realizó mediante el envío de documentación a los responsablesde la gestión de vacunas en el Área y al Servicio Andaluz de Salud y mediantesesiones informativas para el equipo de Enfermería en los centros. Los errores vacunalesfueron notificados al Instituto para el Uso Seguro de los Medicamentos,que lo comunicó a la Agencia Española de Medicamentos y Productos Sanitariosy a los laboratorios fabricantes de las vacunas implicadas.Conclusiones: las vacunas constituyen un grupo de medicamentos con una alta probabilidadde conducir a errores de administración, relacionados en gran medidacon la similitud en la denominación y el etiquetado. Mientras no se adopten medidaspara diferenciarlas claramente, se requiere el esfuerzo de los profesionalesen la identificación correcta de los cartonajes para evitar errores en la administración (AU)


Objective: to identify errors in the administration of vaccines as well as errors thatcould be a result of similar packaging, in a district of the Andalusian Health Servicein 2007. The results of this study were used in both an internal and externaldissemination strategy.Material and method: descriptive study in the Health District of Aljarafe (Seville)of the Andalusian Health Service (AHS). Information regarding vaccination errorsreported in 2007 was gathered. Similarities in the names and labelling of the differentvaccines available in the centres were analyzed.Results: eight real errors were detected after the administration of the 23-valentantipneumococcic vaccine instead of the flu vaccine. These errors were due to thehighly similar labelling of both types of vaccine. 15 other situations which couldlead to errors related with design and name were identified. Internal disseminationwas carried out via the distribution of documentation to those in charge of vaccinemanagement in the Area and to the Andalusian Health Service and by meansof informative sessions for the Nursing team in these centres. Vaccination errorswere reported to the Institute for the Safe Use of Drugs, which in turn informedthe Spanish Drug and Healthcare Products Agency and laboratories which manufacturedthe vaccines involved.Conclusions: vaccines are a group of drugs presenting a high probability of leadingto administration errors due to their similarities in name and labelling. Untilmeasures are adopted to clearly differentiate them, professionals are required tobe careful in the correct identification of drug packages to avoid administrationerrors (AU)


Assuntos
Humanos , Vacinas Meningocócicas/efeitos adversos , Vacinas Meningocócicas/administração & dosagem , Atenção Primária à Saúde , Erros de Medicação , Notificação , Espanha
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA
...