Trial reportBMC medical informatics and decision making2017
EXPLICIT: a feasibility study of remote expert elicitation in health technology assessment.
Trial report in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Applications of Structural Expert Elicitations for Economic Evaluations: A Systematic Review Update.PharmacoEconomics · 2026Pooled it
- Software with artificial intelligence-derived algorithms for analysing CT brain scans in people with a suspected acute stroke: a systematic review and cost-effectiveness analysis.Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) · 2024Pooled it
- The Use of Expert Elicitation among Computational Modeling Studies in Health Research: A Systematic Review.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2022Pooled it
- Guidance for the Harmonisation and Improvement of Economic Evaluations of Personalised Medicine.PharmacoEconomics · 2021Pooled it
- Expert opinion in decision-making: a systematic review of methods and the INTEGRITY framework for incorporating expert consultation into research.Research integrity and peer review · 2026Article
- Expert participation in the health technology assessment process: a scoping review.Revista brasileira de enfermagem · 2026Article
- Direct healthcare costs of non-metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer in Italy.International journal of technology assessment in health care · 2023Article
- Crowdsourced Perceptions of Human Behavior to Improve Computational Forecasts of US National Incident Cases of COVID-19: Survey Study.JMIR public health and surveillance · 2022Article
- Article
- Validation of 4D Components for Measuring Quality of the Public Health Data Collection Process: Elicitation Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2021Article
- Cost-effectiveness of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis in Population-based Breast Cancer Screening: A Probabilistic Sensitivity Analysis.Radiology · 2020Article
- Cost-effectiveness analysis of newborn pulse oximetry screening to detect critical congenital heart disease in Colombia.Cost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E · 2019Article
- Use of Expert Judgement Across NICE Guidance-Making Programmes: A Review of Current Processes and Suitability of Existing Tools to Support the Use of Expert Elicitation.Applied health economics and health policy · 2018Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundExpert opinion is often sought to complement available information needed to inform model-based economic evaluations in health technology assessments. In this context, we define expert elicitation as the process of encoding expert opinion on a quantity of interest, together with associated uncertainty, as a probability distribution. When availability for face-to-face expert elicitation with a facilitator is limited, elicitation can be conducted remotely, overcoming challenges of finding an appropriate time to meet the expert and allowing access to experts situated too far away for practical face-to-face sessions. However, distance elicitation is associated with reduced response rates and limited assistance for the expert during the elicitation session. The aim of this study was to inform the development of a remote elicitation tool by exploring the influence of mode of elicitation on elicited beliefs.
methodsAn Excel-based tool (EXPLICIT) was developed to assist the elicitation session, including the preparation of the expert and recording of their responses. General practitioners (GPs) were invited to provide expert opinion about population alcohol consumption behaviours. They were randomised to complete the elicitation by either a face-to-face meeting or email. EXPLICIT was used in the elicitation sessions for both arms.
resultsFifteen GPs completed the elicitation session. Those conducted by email were longer than the face-to-face sessions (13 min 30 s vs 10 min 26 s, p = 0.1) and the email-elicited estimates contained less uncertainty. However, the resulting aggregated distributions were comparable.
conclusionsEXPLICIT was useful in both facilitating the elicitation task and in obtaining expert opinion from experts via email. The findings support the opinion that remote, self-administered elicitation is a viable approach within the constraints of HTA to inform policy making, although poor response rates may be observed and additional time for individual sessions may be required.
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.