ReviewApplied health economics and health policy2021
Which Criteria are Considered and How are They Evaluated in Health Technology Assessments? A Review of Methodological Guidelines Used in Western and Asian Countries.
Review in Applied health economics and health policy, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Cancer-specific or generic preference-based measures in oncology? A validity comparison across six commonly diagnosed cancers.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2026Article
- Strengthening health technology assessment in Greece: industry-identified barriers and recommendations.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Navigating change: a comparative analysis of health technology assessment reforms across agencies - processes, drivers, and interdependencies.International journal of technology assessment in health care · 2025Review
- Health utility scores of six common cancers in China measured by SF-6Dv2.Health and quality of life outcomes · 2025Article
- A comparison of measurement properties between EORTC QLU-C10D and FACT-8D in patients with hematological malignances.Health economics review · 2024Article
- Article
- United States Value Set for the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General Eight Dimensions (FACT-8D), a Cancer-Specific Preference-Based Quality of Life Instrument.PharmacoEconomics - open · 2024Article
- Stakeholder perspectives on cooperation in the clinical and nonclinical health technology assessment domains.International journal of technology assessment in health care · 2023Article
- Do Health Technology Assessment organisations consider manufacturers' costs in relation to drug price? A study of reimbursement reports.Cost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E · 2022Article
- A review of facilities management interventions to mitigate respiratory infections in existing buildings.Building and environment · 2022Article
- Gene Therapy Evidence Generation and Economic Analysis: Pragmatic Considerations to Facilitate Fit-for-Purpose Health Technology Assessment.Frontiers in public health · 2022Review
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
objectivesThis study aimed to provide an exhaustive description of criteria and methodological recommendations for evaluating them in health technology assessment (HTA) in Western and Asian countries.
methodsWe conducted a system literature review of HTA-related guidelines by searching the websites of HTA agencies and related data sources. The guidelines, reports, or recommendations introducing the HTA evaluation methods, processes, decision-making frameworks, and criteria for priority setting were eligible to be included. The review was limited to guidelines from countries belonging to the European Network for Health Technology Assessment (EUnetHTA) and HTAsiaLink organisations and other countries with well-established available guidelines.
resultsA total of 52 guidelines from 24 countries were identified, including 13 countries from the EUnetHTA organisation, 9 countries from the HTAsiaLink organisation and 2 other countries (Canada and the USA). A strong consensus was observed among the HTA agencies on the core set of criteria including efficacy or effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, safety, and budget impact. More similarities were observed than differences in methodological recommendations for clinical and economic evaluations among the agencies.
conclusionsSubstantial convergence is seen in the criteria included in the HTA process, as well as the methods to evaluate and quantify them. Further efforts are needed to verify whether the criteria identified from the guidelines are incorporated in real HTA decisions, and how they are assessed and weighted in practice.
Indexed as
Identifiers
33426626What 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.