ArticleBMJ open2015
Health technology assessment in Switzerland: a descriptive analysis of "Coverage with Evidence Development" decisions from 1996 to 2013.
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.
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.
- Health technology assessment system in Switzerland: Current state, gaps, and prospects for improvement.PLOS global public health · 2026Article
- Coverage with evidence development for medicines with insufficient evidence of clinical benefit: experience from the Netherlands.International journal of technology assessment in health care · 2025Article
- Health technology assessment for digital health Technologies in India: a framework for action.International journal of technology assessment in health care · 2024Article
- 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 · 2021Article
- Health Technology Assessment in High, Middle, and Low-income Countries: New Systematic and Interdisciplinary Approach For Sound Informed-policy Making: Research Protocole.Risk management and healthcare policy · 2021Article
- Formulating an Ethics of Pharmaceutical Disinvestment.Journal of bioethical inquiry · 2020Article
- Views of European Drug Development Stakeholders on Treatment Optimization and Its Potential for Use in Decision-Making.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.