How Can We Optimize the Value Assessment and Appraisal of Orphan Drugs for Reimbursement Purposes? A Qualitative Interview Study Across European Countries.

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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

1. Reframing the value of reserve antibiotics: how ultra-orphan reimbursement pathways could offer fair and equitable access to new antibiotics.Health policy OPEN · 2026
   Article
2. Clinical and non-clinical aspects of reimbursement policy for orphan drugs in selected European countries.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2024
   Article
3. Addressing unmet needs in rare diseases: A patient-centred vision through INFORM-RD.Therapeutic advances in rare disease
   Article

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 at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as