ReviewPharmacoEconomics2006
Building bridges between academic research and policy formulation: the PRUFE framework - an integral part of Ontario's evidence-based HTPA process.
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.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- A Guide to an Iterative Approach to Model-Based Decision Making in Health and Medicine: An Iterative Decision-Making Framework.PharmacoEconomics · 2024Article
- Assessing the performance of health technology assessment (HTA) agencies: developing a multi-country, multi-stakeholder, and multi-dimensional framework to explore mechanisms of impact.Cost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E · 2021Article
- Evidence-Based Decision Making 3: Health Technology Assessment.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2021Article
- Transparency in Decision Modelling: What, Why, Who and How?PharmacoEconomics · 2019Review
- Comparative effectiveness research in Ontario, Canada: producing relevant and timely information for health care decision makers.The Milbank quarterly · 2009Article
- Using health technology assessment to identify research gaps: an unexploited resource for increasing the value of clinical research.Healthcare policy = Politiques de sante · 2008Article
- Building bridges between academic research and policy formulation: when costing less means costing more.PharmacoEconomics · 2007Article
- Better analysis for better decisions: facing up to the challenges.PharmacoEconomics · 2006Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
17067198What 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.