Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27267369›Full record

ArticleBMC medical ethics2016

Steps toward improving ethical evaluation in health technology assessment: a proposed framework.

Nazila Assasi, Jean-Eric Tarride, Daria O'Reilly, Lisa Schwartz

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical ethics, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing 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

14 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Brain-Hype and For-Profit Medical Devices.Journal of bioethical inquiry · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Ethics domains in full health technology assessment reports: an attempt to begin mapping the field.International journal of technology assessment in health care · 2025
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Ethics information retrieval in HTA: state of current practice.International journal of technology assessment in health care · 2023
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Evidence-Based Decision Making 3: Health Technology Assessment.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2021
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. 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

4 authors.

Nazila AssasiDepartment of Clinical Epidemiology & Biostatistics, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada. assasin@mcmaster.ca.
Jean-Eric TarrideDepartment of Clinical Epidemiology & Biostatistics, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Daria O'ReillyDepartment of Clinical Epidemiology & Biostatistics, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Lisa SchwartzDepartment of Clinical Epidemiology & Biostatistics, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWhile evaluation of ethical aspects in health technology assessment (HTA) has gained much attention during the past years, the integration of ethics in HTA practice still presents many challenges. In response to the increasing demand for expansion of health technology assessment (HTA) methodology to include ethical issues more systematically, this article reports on a multi-stage study that aimed at construction of a framework for improving the integration of ethics in HTA.

methodsThe framework was developed through the following phases: 1) a systematic review and content analysis of guidance documents for ethics in HTA; 2) identification of factors influencing the integration of ethical considerations in HTA; 3) preparation of an action-oriented framework based on the key elements of the existing guidance documents and identified barriers to and facilitators of their implementation; and 4) expert consultation and revision of the framework.

resultsThe proposed framework consists of three main components: an algorithmic flowchart, which exhibits the different steps of an ethical inquiry throughout the HTA process, including: defining the objectives and scope of the evaluation, stakeholder analysis, assessing organizational capacity, framing ethical evaluation questions, ethical analysis, deliberation, and knowledge translation; a stepwise guide, which focuses on the task objectives and potential questions that are required to be addressed at each step; and a list of some commonly recommended or used tools to help facilitate the evaluation process.

conclusionsThe proposed framework can be used to support and promote good practice in integration of ethics into HTA. However, further validation of the framework through case studies and expert consultation is required to establish its utility for HTA practice.

Indexed as

Biomedical TechnologyEthical AnalysisHumansTechnology Assessment, BiomedicalTranslational Research, BiomedicalEthicsFrameworkHealth technology assessmentModelTools

Identifiers

PMID27267369
PMCPMC4895959

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.