Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26077793›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of technology assessment in health care2015

EUROSCAN INTERNATIONAL NETWORK MEMBER AGENCIES: THEIR STRUCTURE, PROCESSES, AND OUTPUTS.

Claire Packer, Sue Simpson, Rosimary Terezinha de Almeida

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of technology assessment in health care, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Mapping horizon scanning systems for medical devices: similarities, differences, and lessons learned.International journal of technology assessment in health care · 2023
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. 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

3 authors.

Claire PackerNIHR Horizon Scanning Centre,School of Health and Population Sciences,University of Birminghamc.packer@bham.ac.uk.
Sue SimpsonNIHR Horizon Scanning Centre,School of Health and Population Sciences,University of Birmingham.
Rosimary Terezinha de AlmeidaBiomedical Engineering Programme,Alberto Luiz Coimbra Institute,Graduate School and Research in Engineering,Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro,Cidade Universitaria.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThe EuroScan International Network is a global network of publicly funded early awareness and alert (EAA) systems for health technologies. We describe the EuroScan member agency systems and methods, and highlight the potential for increased collaboration.

methodsEuroScan members completed postal questionnaires supplemented with telephone interviews in 2012 to elicit additional information and check equivalence of responses. Information was updated between March and May 2013.

resultsFifteen of the seventeen member agencies responded. The principal purpose of agencies is to inform decisions on coverage or reimbursement of health services and decisions on undertaking secondary research. The main users of information are national governments; health professionals; health services purchasers, commissioners, and decision makers; and healthcare providers. Most EuroScan agencies are small with almost half having fewer than two whole time equivalent staff. Ten agencies use both active and passive identification approaches, four use only active approaches. Most start identification in the experimental or investigational stages of the technology life cycle. All agencies assessed technologies when they are between the investigational and established, but under diffusion stages. Barriers to collaboration revolve around different system aims, purposes, and requirements; a lack of staff, finance, or opportunity; language differences; and restrictions on dissemination.

conclusionsAlthough many barriers to collaboration were identified, the majority of agencies were supportive of increased collaboration either involving the whole EuroScan Network or between individual agencies. Despite differences in the detailed identification processes, members thought that this was the most feasible phase to develop additional collaboration.

Indexed as

Cooperative BehaviorInternational AgenciesAwarenessHumansProduct Surveillance, PostmarketingResearch DesignTechnology Assessment, BiomedicalEarly awareness and alert systemsHealthcare technologyHorizon scanning

Identifiers

PMID26077793
PMCPMC4505737

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
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.