Table 4 SWOT analysis results
Strengths | Median (total score) | Weaknesses | Median (total score) |
|---|---|---|---|
S1: Elaboration and grading of the recommendations starts at the beginning of the process when ranking the importance of the outcomes | 8 (39 points) | W1: Time-consuming method | 8 (38 points) |
S2: Patients' values are considered to define and grade the outcomes, thus avoiding the influence of literature results | 8 (38 points) | W2: The strength of recommendations does not only depend on the quality of the evidence found | 6 (33 points) |
S3: Patients' opinions taken into account during the process | 7 (37 points) | W3: Requires academic training to understand how it works | 7 (31 points) |
S4: Explicit assessment of the quality of outcomes across studies | 7 (35 points) | W4: Some elements continue to be developed | 5 (29 points) |
S5: Individual analysis of the outcomes, taking into account the 'effect' and applicability aspects during elaboration of the recommendations | 7 (34 points) | ||
S6: Collaboration from the beginning facilitates the acceptance of results | 7 (33 points) | ||
Opportunities | Median (total score) | Threats | Median (total score) |
O1: Possibility to use in HTA, including new technologies, due to its transparency and systematic methodology | 8 (38 points) | T1: Difficulties with new technologies: low number of studies, heterogeneity, unsuitable outcomes... | 6 (34 points) |
O2: Identifies outcomes to be considered in future research | 7 (37 points) | T2: Complexity of the method can limit its use by experts | 7 (34 points) |
O3: Developed software that helps the process | 7 (37 points) | T3: Lack of institutional support | 6 (25 points) |