Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25466570›Full record

SynthesisHealth research policy and systems2014

A systematic review of health technology assessment tools in sub-Saharan Africa: methodological issues and implications.

Christine Kriza, Jill Hanass-Hancock, Emmanuel Ankrah Odame, Nicola Deghaye, Rashid Aman, Philip Wahlster, Mayra Marin, Nicodemus Gebe, Willis Akhwale, Isabelle Wachsmuth and 1 more

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Health research policy and systems, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing 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

17 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Neuropsychiatry genetics in Africa.Nature communications · 2026
    Review
  2. Article
  3. Health technology assessment capacity to support Zambia's health benefits package reform policy.International journal of technology assessment in health care · 2025
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

Christine KrizaInterdisciplinary Centre for Health Technology Assessment (HTA) and Public Health (IZPH), University of Erlangen-Nürnberg, Schwabachanlage 6, Erlangen 91054, Germany. christine.kriza@uk-erlangen.de.
Jill Hanass-Hancock
Emmanuel Ankrah Odame
Nicola Deghaye
Rashid Aman
Philip Wahlster
Mayra Marin
Nicodemus Gebe
Willis Akhwale
Isabelle Wachsmuth
Peter L Kolominsky-Rabas

Funding

World Health Organization 001
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHealth technology assessment (HTA) is mostly used in the context of high- and middle-income countries. Many "resource-poor" settings, which have the greatest need for critical assessment of health technology, have a limited basis for making evidence-based choices. This can lead to inappropriate use of technologies, a problem that could be addressed by HTA that enables the efficient use of resources, which is especially crucial in such settings. There is a lack of clarity about which HTA tools should be used in these settings. This research aims to provide an overview of proposed HTA tools for "resource-poor" settings with a specific focus on sub-Saharan Africa (SSA). METHODOLOGY: A systematic review was conducted using basic steps from the PRISMA guidelines. Studies that described HTA tools applicable for "resource-limited" settings were identified and critically appraised. Only papers published between 2003 and 2013 were included. The identified tools were assessed according to a checklist with methodological criteria.

resultsSix appropriate tools that are applicable in the SSA setting and cover methodological robustness and ease of use were included in the review. Several tools fulfil these criteria, such as the KNOW ESSENTIALS tool, Mini-HTA tool, and Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis but their application in the SSA context remains limited. The WHO CHOICE method is a standardized decision making tool for choosing interventions but is limited to their cost-effectiveness. Most evaluation of health technology in SSA focuses on priority setting. There is a lack of HTA tools that can be used for the systematic assessment of technology in the SSA context.

conclusionsAn appropriate HTA tool for "resource-constrained" settings, and especially SSA, should address all important criteria of decision making. By combining the two most promising tools, KNOW ESSENTIALS and Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis, appropriate analysis of evidence with a robust and flexible methodology could be applied for the SSA setting.

Indexed as

Decision Support TechniquesHealth PolicyAfrica South of the SaharaCost-Benefit AnalysisEvidence-Based MedicineHealth Services Needs and DemandHealth Services ResearchHumansPovertyResource AllocationTechnology Assessment, Biomedical

Identifiers

PMID25466570
PMCPMC4265527

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.