Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27694664›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of health policy and management2016

HTA - Algorithm or Process? Comment on "Expanded HTA: Enhancing Fairness and Legitimacy".

Anthony J Culyer

Abstract readComment
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of health policy and management, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing 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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Caring for Carers: Positive and Normative Challenges for Future Research on Carer Spillover Effects in Economic Evaluation.Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research · 2019
    Article
  6. Review
  7. Ethics in HTA: Examining the "Need for Expansion".International journal of health policy and management · 2017
    Article
  8. Using Cost-Effectiveness Analysis to Address Health Equity Concerns.Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research · 2017
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Anthony J CulyerDepartment of Economics & Related Studies and Centre for Health Economics, University of York, York, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Daniels, Porteny and Urrutia et al make a good case for the idea that that public decisions ought to be made not only "in the light of" evidence but also "on the basis of" budget impact, financial protection and equity. Health technology assessment (HTA) should, they say, be accordingly expanded to consider matters additional to safety and cost-effectiveness. They also complain that most HTA reports fail to develop ethical arguments and generally do not even mention ethical issues. This comment argues that some of these defects are more apparent than real and are not inherent in HTA - as distinct from being common characteristics found in poorly conducted HTAs. More generally, HTA does not need "extension" since (1) ethical issues are already embedded in HTA processes, not least in their scoping phases, and (2) HTA processes are already sufficiently flexible to accommodate evidence about a wide range of factors, and will not need fundamental change in order to accommodate the new forms of decision-relevant evidence about distributional impact and financial protection that are now starting to emerge. HTA and related techniques are there to support decision-makers who have authority to make decisions. Analysts like us are there to support and advise them (and not to assume the responsibilities for which they, and not we, are accountable). The required quality in HTA then becomes its effectiveness as a means of addressing the issues of concern to decision-makers. What is also required is adherence by competent analysts to a standard template of good analytical practice. The competencies include not merely those of the usual disciplines (particularly biostatistics, cognitive psychology, health economics, epidemiology, and ethics) but also the imaginative and interpersonal skills for exploring the "real" question behind the decision-maker's brief (actual or postulated) and eliciting the social values that necessarily pervade the entire analysis. The product of such exploration defines the authoritative scope of an HTA.

Indexed as

Cost-Benefit AnalysisTechnology Assessment, BiomedicalAlgorithmsBiomedical TechnologyDecision MakingDecision Support TechniquesHealth PolicyHumansMoralsSocial ResponsibilityDeliberationEconomic EvaluationEquityExtended Cost-EffectivenessHTA ProcessesQuality-Adjusted Life-Year (QALY) AlgorithmReference Case

Identifiers

PMID27694664
PMCPMC4968254

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.