ArticleHealth research policy and systems2018
Challenges to decision-making processes in the national HTA agency in Brazil: operational procedures, evidence use and recommendations.
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.
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, 41 citations in OpenAlex.
- A deep dive into Brazilian health technology assessment: Structure, policies, and processes.PLOS global public health · 2026Article
- Drugs incorporated into the Brazilian Unified Health System: document analysis of methodological decisions in budget impact analyses between 2012 and 2024.Epidemiologia e servicos de saude : revista do Sistema Unico de Saude do Brasil · 2025Article
- Application of natural language processing to predict final recommendation of Brazilian health technology assessment reports.International journal of technology assessment in health care · 2024Article
- Essential medicines concept and health technology assessment approaches to prioritising medicines: selection versus incorporation.Journal of pharmaceutical policy and practice · 2023Article
- Does patient and public involvement impact public health decision-making? A 10 year retrospective analysis of public consultation in Brazil.Health research policy and systems · 2023Article
- How long does it take to translate research findings into routine healthcare practice?-the case of biological drugs for rheumatoid arthritis in Brazil.Annals of translational medicine · 2022Article
- Expectations for the Development of Health Technology Assessment in Brazil.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Article
- Health Technology Assessment: informed by science or in the service of politics?Revista de saude publica · 2021Article
- Economic Modelling of Screen-and-Treat Strategies for Brazilian Women at Risk of Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer.Applied health economics and health policy · 2021Article
- Clinical practice guidelines in Brazil - developing a national programme.Health research policy and systems · 2020Article
- Patient and public involvement in health technology decision-making processes in Brazil.Revista de saude publica · 2020Article
- Health technology reassessment in the Brazilian public health system: Analysis of the current status.PloS one · 2019Article
- Horizon scanning in Brazil: outputs and repercussions.Revista de saude publica · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
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
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.