ArticleFrontiers in pharmacology2011
Valorising and creating access to innovative medicines in the European union.
Article in Frontiers in pharmacology, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Mapping the landscape of managed entry agreements: a systematic review of global frameworks, system-level components, and implementation challenges.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2026Pooled it
- A systematic review of moral reasons on orphan drug reimbursement.Orphanet journal of rare diseases · 2021Pooled it
- Price determinants and pricing policies concerning potentially innovative health technologies: a scoping review.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2026Article
- Current landscape of innovative drug development and regulatory support in China.Signal transduction and targeted therapy · 2025Review
- The challenges of access to innovative medicines with limited evidence in the European Union.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2023Review
- How to balance valuable innovation with affordable access to medicines in Belgium?Frontiers in pharmacology · 2022Article
- Relative efficacy and effectiveness assessment of new pharmaceuticals in three EU member states: current practices and outcome agreement between Belgium, the Netherlands and France.European journal of clinical pharmacology · 2013Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This Perspective describes (a) the current situation, (b) challenges and initiatives, (c) and formulates recommendations to valorize and create access to innovative medicines in the EU. We are currently still far away from optimal assessment of value for money in the EU. On the one hand, valorizing innovative medicines involves a local appraisal by health technology assessment (HTA) bodies and competent authorities about the value for money, the budget impact, and the local medical need that can be filled with new medicines. Therefore, local priorities and national health care policy environments should be reflected in the processes and criteria used for assessing value for money and ultimately for reimbursement decisions. On the other hand, a pan-European assessment of both relative effectiveness and medical need (including general ethical and social considerations) should be envisaged in order to feed part of the data needed for the local decisions in an efficient way. This could be the task of the European Medicines Agency, HTA bodies, and competent authorities together.
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.