Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36855929›Full record

ArticleClinical and translational science2023

Synergy between health technology assessments and clinical guidelines for multiple sclerosis.

Milou A Hogervorst, Rick A Vreman, Anna Zawada, Magdalena Zielińska, Dalia M Dawoud, Brigit A de Jong, Aukje K Mantel-Teeuwisse, Wim G Goettsch

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical and translational science, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

8 authors.

Milou A HogervorstDivision of Pharmacoepidemiology and Clinical Pharmacology, Utrecht Institute for Pharmaceutical Sciences (UIPS), Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-7528-574X
Rick A VremanDivision of Pharmacoepidemiology and Clinical Pharmacology, Utrecht Institute for Pharmaceutical Sciences (UIPS), Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Anna ZawadaDepartment of Pharmacoeconomics, Medical University of Warsaw, Warsaw, Poland.
Magdalena ZielińskaDepartment of Pharmacoeconomics, Medical University of Warsaw, Warsaw, Poland.
Dalia M DawoudNational Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), London, UK.
Brigit A de JongDepartment of Neurology, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam Neuroscience, MS Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Aukje K Mantel-TeeuwisseDivision of Pharmacoepidemiology and Clinical Pharmacology, Utrecht Institute for Pharmaceutical Sciences (UIPS), Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Wim G GoettschDivision of Pharmacoepidemiology and Clinical Pharmacology, Utrecht Institute for Pharmaceutical Sciences (UIPS), Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Decision-making for reimbursement and clinical guidelines (CGs) serves different purposes although the decision-criteria and required evidence largely overlap. This study aimed to assess similarities and discrepancies between health technology assessment (HTA) reports as compared to CGs for multiple sclerosis (MS) medicines. All HTA reports and corresponding CGs for MS from the UK, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Poland, Sweden, and the European Union were assessed to identify synergies in recommendations for MS medicines (approved 1995-2020). A content analysis of HTA reports and CGs was performed to identify similarities and discrepancies in wording of treatment recommendations across documents. We assessed 132 HTA reports and 9 CGs for 16 MS treatments. Final recommendations for reimbursement and inclusion in CGs were mostly similar (90%), albeit with considerable differences in treatment lines and subindications. Since 2010, HTA reports refer to the use of CGs in 42% (55/132) and to consultations with clinicians in 43% (57/132) of cases. Six of nine CGs referred to HTA reports and two referred to HTA consultations, in one case having a formal relation to the HTA organization. CGs referenced pharmacoeconomic studies (4/9) for costs and cost-effectiveness. To date, not all new HTA recommendations for MS treatments are included in CGs. Some synergy exists between treatment recommendations in HTA reports and CGs, although discrepancies were seen in timelines and in recommended treatment lines and subindications. More stakeholder dialogue and/or consultation of each other's publications may further improve synergy, facilitate transparency, and enhance patient access.

Indexed as

Multiple SclerosisTechnology Assessment, BiomedicalCost-Benefit AnalysisEuropean UnionHumansNetherlands

Identifiers

PMID36855929
PMCPMC10175979

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.