Evidence map›Paper›PMID 17067198›Full record

ReviewPharmacoEconomics2006

Building bridges between academic research and policy formulation: the PRUFE framework - an integral part of Ontario's evidence-based HTPA process.

Ron Goeree, Leslie Levin

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in PharmacoEconomics, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Evidence-Based Decision Making 3: Health Technology Assessment.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2021
    Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Ron GoereeDepartment of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. goereer@mcmaster.ca
Leslie Levin

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Healthcare expenditure in Ontario has been escalating at increasing rates and a growing proportion of this has come from medical devices and other technologies. A comprehensive evidence-based process for the assessment of new health technologies in Ontario was recently established (the Health Technology Policy Analysis [HTPA] process). Requests for funding for new technologies are directed through a department of the Ministry called the Medical Advisory Secretariat (MAS) who, using a systematic and evidence-based approach, provides information on the safety, effectiveness, and cost effectiveness of the technology to the Ontario Health Technology Advisory Committee (OHTAC). If the OHTAC determines that the evidentiary base for making recommendations is too uncertain, a request is made to reduce this uncertainty through the conduct of a 'real world' Ontario-based study. The Program for Assessment of Technology in Health (PATH) reduction of Uncertainty through Field Evaluation (PRUFE) framework is an iterative process for collecting new information, updating prior knowledge and providing new 'real world' evidence back to the Ministry regarding the cost effectiveness of new health technologies. MAS/OHTAC has undertaken evidence-based analyses for >50 new technologies. The PRUFE framework has been successful for reducing uncertainty and controlling healthcare expenditures while providing access and improving patient outcomes.

Indexed as

Biomedical ResearchBiomedical TechnologyHealth PolicyOntarioTechnology Assessment, Biomedical

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.