Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25818273›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2015

Health technology assessment in Switzerland: a descriptive analysis of "Coverage with Evidence Development" decisions from 1996 to 2013.

Urs Brügger, Bruno Horisberger, Alexander Ruckstuhl, Rafael Plessow, Klaus Eichler, Alois Gratwohl

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Health technology assessment for digital health Technologies in India: a framework for action.International journal of technology assessment in health care · 2024
    Article
  4. Coverage with evidence development schemes for medical devices in Europe: characteristics and challenges.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2021
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Formulating an Ethics of Pharmaceutical Disinvestment.Journal of bioethical inquiry · 2020
    Article
  7. 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

6 authors.

Urs BrüggerWinterthur Institute of Health Economics, Zurich University of Applied Sciences, Winterthur, Switzerland.
Bruno HorisbergerWinterthur Institute of Health Economics, Zurich University of Applied Sciences, Winterthur, Switzerland.
Alexander RuckstuhlInstitute for Data Analysis and Process Design, Zurich University of Applied Sciences, Winterthur, Switzerland.
Rafael PlessowWinterthur Institute of Health Economics, Zurich University of Applied Sciences, Winterthur, Switzerland.
Klaus EichlerWinterthur Institute of Health Economics, Zurich University of Applied Sciences, Winterthur, Switzerland.
Alois GratwohlMedical Faculty, University of Basle, Basle, Switzerland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo identify factors associated with the decisions of the Federal Department of Home Affairs concerning coverage with evidence development (CED) for contested novel medical technologies in Switzerland.

designQuantitative, retrospective, descriptive analysis of publicly available material and prospective, structured, qualitative interviews with key stakeholders.

settingAll 152 controversial medical services decided on by the Federal Commission on Health Insurance Benefits within the framework of the new federal law on health insurance in Switzerland from 1997 to 2013, with focus on 33 technologies assigned initially to CED and 33 to evidence development without coverage.

main outcome measuresFactors associated with numbers and type of contested services assigned to CED per year, the duration and final outcome of the evaluations and perceptions of key stakeholders.

resultsThe rate of CED decisions (82 total; median 1.5/year; range 0-9/year), the time to final decision (4.5 years median; 0.75 to +11 years) and the probability of a final 'yes' varied over time. In logistic regression models, the change of office of the commission provided the best explanation for the observed outcomes. Good intentions but absence of scientific criteria for decisions were reported as major comments by the stakeholders.

conclusionsThe introduction of CED enabled access to some promising technologies early in their life cycle, and might have triggered establishment of registries and research. Impact on patients' outcome and costs remain unknown. The primary association of institutional changes with measured end points illustrates the need for evaluation of the current health technology assessment (HTA) system.

Indexed as

Decision Making, OrganizationalEvidence-Based MedicineInsurance CoverageInsurance, HealthTechnology Assessment, BiomedicalFederal GovernmentHumansLongitudinal StudiesMedical Staff, HospitalProspective StudiesRetrospective StudiesSwitzerlandTime Factors

Identifiers

PMID25818273
PMCPMC4386218

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.