Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29751764›Full record

ArticleHealth research policy and systems2018

Challenges to decision-making processes in the national HTA agency in Brazil: operational procedures, evidence use and recommendations.

Tania Yuka Yuba, Hillegonda Maria Dutilh Novaes, Patrícia Coelho de Soárez

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health research policy and systems, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
14.3field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 41 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Expectations for the Development of Health Technology Assessment in Brazil.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. 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 at 1 institution in 1 country.

Tania Yuka YubaDepartment of Preventive Medicine, University of São Paulo School of Medicine, Av. Dr. Arnaldo, 455, Cerqueira César, São Paulo, SP, CEP: 01246903, Brazil.
Hillegonda Maria Dutilh NovaesDepartment of Preventive Medicine, University of São Paulo School of Medicine, Av. Dr. Arnaldo, 455, Cerqueira César, São Paulo, SP, CEP: 01246903, Brazil. hidutilh@usp.br.
Patrícia Coelho de SoárezDepartment of Preventive Medicine, University of São Paulo School of Medicine, Av. Dr. Arnaldo, 455, Cerqueira César, São Paulo, SP, CEP: 01246903, Brazil.
Universidade de São Paulo · BR

Funding

Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico 304580/2016-3Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico 306536/2015-3Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo 2012/22126-3Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo 2015/02713-0
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe quality of the evidence used in health technology assessment (HTA) agency reports has been considered essential for decision-making processes and their legitimacy. In Brazil, CONITEC is the agency responsible for defining data mandatory for the submission of proposals for the incorporation of new technologies. The objective of this study was to analyse CONITEC recommendation reports, the type of scientific evidence used in them and their compliance with operational procedures.

methodsThis is a descriptive study based on CONITEC official reports from July 2012 through December 2016. Data were collected with a specific extraction form and analysed using descriptive statistics.

resultsWe evaluated 199 CONITEC recommendation reports. The annual number of reports increased during the study period. The absolute annual number of new technologies incorporated in 2013 (n = 24) was similar to that observed for 2014 (n = 24) and 2015 (n = 22), decreasing in 2016 (n = 13). The type of technology most frequently evaluated was 'drugs' (68.3%), followed by 'procedures' (20.1%). Overall, 117 (58.8%) reports were internal demands, 75 (37.7%) were external demands and 7 (3.5%) were mixed demands. There were differences between internal and external demands in terms of the evidence used in the reports and the decision regarding the recommendation to incorporate the technologies. Among the internal demands, the recommendation to incorporate the new technology was made for 70.9% of the reports, only 9.6% of which included full HTAs. Among the external demands, the incorporation of the new technology was recommended for 17.3% of the reports, 76.9% of which included full HTAs. Of the 101 reports in which incorporation of the new technology was recommended, 88 (87.1%) did not include a full health economic evaluation and ICER calculation. There are compliance difficulties with the recommendations in the CONITEC internal regulations regarding the type and quality of evidence considered in the analysis of recommendation reports.

conclusionsThe characteristics of the evidence used in recommendation reports and those considered to be mandatory were very different, indicating problems in decision-making processes. There is a need to study, with a broader perspective, the factors that influence the type of evidence used in decision-making processes in order to contribute to the development of better practices and policies.

Indexed as

Advisory CommitteesCost-Benefit AnalysisDecision MakingEvidence-Based MedicineGuidelines as TopicHealth PolicyTechnology Assessment, BiomedicalBrazilHumansevidence-based decisionsevidence-based policyhealth policyhealth technology assessment

Identifiers

PMID29751764
PMCPMC5948855
OpenAlexW2807689837

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.