Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37181704›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in public health2023

Recommendations to overcome barriers to the use of artificial intelligence-driven evidence in health technology assessment.

Antal Zemplényi, Konstantin Tachkov, Laszlo Balkanyi, Bertalan Németh, Zsuzsanna Ida Petykó, Guenka Petrova, Marcin Czech, Dalia Dawoud, Wim Goettsch, Inaki Gutierrez Ibarluzea and 10 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in public health, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Competencies for health technology assessment professionals: a scoping review and content analysis.International journal of technology assessment in health care · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Generative Artificial Intelligence for Health Technology Assessment: Opportunities, Challenges, and Policy Considerations: An ISPOR Working Group Report.Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research · 2025
    Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Health technology assessment framework for artificial intelligence-based technologies.International journal of technology assessment in health care · 2024
    Article
  16. Article
  17. eHealth implementationFrontiers in digital health · 2024
    Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. 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

20 authors.

Antal ZemplényiCenter for Health Technology Assessment and Pharmacoeconomics Research, Faculty of Pharmacy, University of Pécs, Pécs, Hungary.
Konstantin TachkovDepartment of Organization and Economics of Pharmacy, Faculty of Pharmacy, Medical University of Sofia, Sofia, Bulgaria.
Laszlo BalkanyiMedical Informatics R&D Center, Pannon University, Veszprém, Hungary.
Bertalan NémethSyreon Research Institute, Budapest, Hungary.
Zsuzsanna Ida PetykóSyreon Research Institute, Budapest, Hungary.
Guenka PetrovaDepartment of Organization and Economics of Pharmacy, Faculty of Pharmacy, Medical University of Sofia, Sofia, Bulgaria.
Marcin CzechDepartment of Pharmacoeconomics, Institute of Mother and Child, Warsaw, Poland.
Dalia DawoudScience Policy and Research Programme, Science Evidence and Analytics Directorate, National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), London, United Kingdom.
Wim GoettschDivision of Pharmacoepidemiology and Clinical Pharmacology, Utrecht University, Utrecht, Netherlands.
Inaki Gutierrez IbarluzeaBasque Foundation for Health Innovation and Research, Barakaldo, Spain.
Rok HrenFaculty of Mathematics and Physics, University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia.
Saskia KniesNational Health Care Institute, Diemen, Netherlands.
László LorenzoviciSyreon Research Romania, Tirgu Mures, Romania.
Zorana MaravicDigestive Cancers Europe, Brussels, Belgium.
Oresta PiniazhkoHTA Department of State Expert Centre of the Ministry of Health of Ukraine, Kyiv, Ukraine.
Alexandra SavovaDepartment of Organization and Economics of Pharmacy, Faculty of Pharmacy, Medical University of Sofia, Sofia, Bulgaria.
Manoela ManovaDepartment of Organization and Economics of Pharmacy, Faculty of Pharmacy, Medical University of Sofia, Sofia, Bulgaria.
Tomas TesarDepartment of Organisation and Management of Pharmacy, Faculty of Pharmacy, Comenius University in Bratislava, Bratislava, Slovakia.
Spela ZerovnikMinistry of Health, Ljubljana, Slovenia.
Zoltán KalóSyreon Research Institute, Budapest, Hungary.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Artificial intelligence (AI) has attracted much attention because of its enormous potential in healthcare, but uptake has been slow. There are substantial barriers that challenge health technology assessment (HTA) professionals to use AI-generated evidence for decision-making from large real-world databases (e.g., based on claims data). As part of the European Commission-funded HTx H2020 (Next Generation Health Technology Assessment) project, we aimed to put forward recommendations to support healthcare decision-makers in integrating AI into the HTA processes. The barriers, addressed by the paper, are particularly focusing on Central and Eastern European (CEE) countries, where the implementation of HTA and access to health databases lag behind Western European countries. Methods: We constructed a survey to rank the barriers to using AI for HTA purposes, completed by respondents from CEE jurisdictions with expertise in HTA. Using the results, two members of the HTx consortium from CEE developed recommendations on the most critical barriers. Then these recommendations were discussed in a workshop by a wider group of experts, including HTA and reimbursement decision-makers from both CEE countries and Western European countries, and summarized in a consensus report. Results: Recommendations have been developed to address the top 15 barriers in areas of (1) human factor-related barriers, focusing on educating HTA doers and users, establishing collaborations and best practice sharing; (2) regulatory and policy-related barriers, proposing increasing awareness and political commitment and improving the management of sensitive information for AI use; (3) data-related barriers, suggesting enhancing standardization and collaboration with data networks, managing missing and unstructured data, using analytical and statistical approaches to address bias, using quality assessment tools and quality standards, improving reporting, and developing better conditions for the use of data; and (4) technological barriers, suggesting sustainable development of AI infrastructure. Conclusion: In the field of HTA, the great potential of AI to support evidence generation and evaluation has not yet been sufficiently explored and realized. Raising awareness of the intended and unintended consequences of AI-based methods and encouraging political commitment from policymakers is necessary to upgrade the regulatory and infrastructural environment and knowledge base required to integrate AI into HTA-based decision-making processes better.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceTechnology Assessment, BiomedicalData ManagementEuropeHealth PolicyHumansartificial intelligence—AICentral and Eastern Europeevidence generationhealth technology assessmentmachine learning

Identifiers

PMID37181704
PMCPMC10171457

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.