ReviewThe Milbank quarterly2005
One of these things is not like the others: the idea of precedence in health technology assessment and coverage decisions.
Review in The Milbank quarterly, 2005. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Which Framework to Use? A Systematic Review of Ethical Frameworks for the Screening or Evaluation of Health Technology Innovations.Science and engineering ethics · 2022Pooled it
- Towards an Explanation of the Social Value of Health Systems: An Interpretive Synthesis.International journal of health policy and management · 2021Article
- Understanding relevance of health research: considerations in the context of research impact assessment.Health research policy and systems · 2017Article
- Steps toward improving ethical evaluation in health technology assessment: a proposed framework.BMC medical ethics · 2016Article
- Analysing coverage decision-making: opening Pandora's box?The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2014Article
- Why not integrate ethics in HTA: identification and assessment of the reasons.GMS health technology assessment · 2014Article
- The force of dissimilar analogies in bioethics.Theoretical medicine and bioethics · 2011Article
- Combining multicriteria decision analysis, ethics and health technology assessment: applying the EVIDEM decision-making framework to growth hormone for Turner syndrome patients.Cost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E · 2010Article
- Technology assessment and resource allocation for predictive genetic testing: a study of the perspectives of Canadian genetic health care providers.BMC medical ethics · 2009Article
- Ethical analysis to improve decision-making on health technologies.Bulletin of the World Health Organization · 2008Article
- 6-STEPPPs: A Modular Tool to Facilitate Clinician Participation in Fair Decisions for Funding New Cancer Drugs.Journal of oncology practice · 2008Article
- How good is good enough? Standards in policy decisions to cover new health technologies.Healthcare policy = Politiques de sante · 2007Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Health plans often deliberate covering technologies with challenging purposes, effects, or costs. They must integrate quantitative evidence (e.g., how well a technology works) with qualitative, normative assessments (e.g., whether it works well enough for a worthwhile purpose). Arguments from analogy and precedent help integrate these criteria and establish standards for their policy application. Examples of arguments are described for three technologies (ICSI, genetic tests, and Viagra). Drawing lessons from law, ethics, philosophy, and the social sciences, a framework is developed for case-based evaluation of new technologies. The decision-making cycle includes (1) taking stock of past decisions and formulating precedents, (2) deciding new cases, and (3) assimilating decisions into the case history and evaluation framework. Each stage requires distinctive decision maker roles, information, and methods.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.