SynthesisAtencion primaria2020
[Therapeutic positioning reports: Experience in Spain during the period 2013-2019].
Synthesis in Atencion primaria, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Deliberative processes in health technology assessment of medicines: the case of Spain.International journal of technology assessment in health care · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveDescribe the characteristics of the therapeutic positioning reports (TPRs) published in Spain in the period 2013-2019. DESIGN AND DATA SOURCE: Systematic review of all TPRs published in the website of the Spanish Agency of Medicines and Health Products (AEMPS). SELECTION OF STUDIES: All TPRs published since May 2013, until March 2019 DATA EXTRACTION: The main variables collected were the therapeutic groups assessed, the number of TPRs, the time of elaboration, the existence of restrictions versus the authorized indications and the information on the efficiency of medicines.
resultsDuring the period under review, 214 TPRs were carried out, with an average production time of 8.8 months, almost three times the objective of 3-month initially set. 57% of the TPRs established restrictions of use with respect to the approved indications. 26% of TPRs referred to the existence of economic data, although none included details on the efficiency. 10% of TPRs were updated.
conclusionsFor TPRs to meet their objective of improving the efficiency of the assessment process and the consistency in the decisions on price, reimbursement and financing of medicines by the SNS, the deadlines established for publication must be met, incorporating systematically information on the efficiency of the drugs and including periodic updates with the new information generated.
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.