Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38851235›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2024

Methodological guidelines and publications of benefit-risk assessment for health technology assessment: a scoping review.

Erica Aranha Suzumura, Bruna de Oliveira Ascef, Fernando Henrique de Albuquerque Maia, Aline Frossard Ribeiro Bortoluzzi, Sidney Marcel Domingues, Natalia Santos Farias, Franciele Cordeiro Gabriel, Beate Jahn, Uwe Siebert, Patricia Coelho de Soarez

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Dose-Response and Clinical Equivalence of Semaglutide and Tirzepatide for Weight Loss in Type 2 Diabetes: A Model-Based Analysis.Diabetes therapy : research, treatment and education of diabetes and related disorders · 2026
    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

10 authors.

Erica Aranha Suzumura *Departamento de Medicina Preventiva, Faculdade de Medicina - FMUSP, Universidade de Sao Paulo, Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil esuzumura@yahoo.com.br.ORCID 0000-0003-1752-6095
Bruna de Oliveira Ascef *Departamento de Medicina Preventiva, Faculdade de Medicina - FMUSP, Universidade de Sao Paulo, Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0002-2744-3974
Fernando Henrique de Albuquerque MaiaDepartamento de Medicina Preventiva, Faculdade de Medicina - FMUSP, Universidade de Sao Paulo, Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil.
Aline Frossard Ribeiro BortoluzziDepartamento de Medicina Preventiva, Faculdade de Medicina - FMUSP, Universidade de Sao Paulo, Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil.
Sidney Marcel DominguesDepartamento de Medicina Preventiva, Faculdade de Medicina - FMUSP, Universidade de Sao Paulo, Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil.
Natalia Santos FariasDepartamento de Medicina Preventiva, Faculdade de Medicina - FMUSP, Universidade de Sao Paulo, Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil.
Franciele Cordeiro GabrielDepartamento de Ciências Farmacêuticas, Universidade de Sao Paulo, Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0002-4375-3729
Beate JahnInstitute of Public Health, Medical Decision Making and Health Technology Assessment, Department of Public Health, Health Services Research and Health Technology Assessment, UMIT TIROL - University for Health Sciences and Technology, Hall in Tirol, Austria.
Uwe SiebertInstitute of Public Health, Medical Decision Making and Health Technology Assessment, Department of Public Health, Health Services Research and Health Technology Assessment, UMIT TIROL - University for Health Sciences and Technology, Hall in Tirol, Austria.ORCID 0000-0001-6425-7671
Patricia Coelho de SoarezDepartamento de Medicina Preventiva, Faculdade de Medicina - FMUSP, Universidade de Sao Paulo, Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0001-8383-0728

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo map the available methodological guidelines and documents for conducting and reporting benefit-risk assessment (BRA) during health technologies' life cycle; and to identify methodological guidelines for BRA that could serve as the basis for the development of a BRA guideline for the context of health technology assessment (HTA) in Brazil.

designScoping review.

methodsSearches were conducted in three main sources up to March 2023: (1) electronic databases; (2) grey literature (48 HTA and regulatory organisations) and (3) manual search and contacting experts. We included methodological guidelines or publications presenting methods for conducting or reporting BRA of any type of health technologies in any context of the technology's life cycle. Selection process and data charting were conducted by independent reviewers. We provided a structured narrative synthesis of the findings.

resultsFrom the 83 eligible documents, six were produced in the HTA context, 30 in the regulatory and 35 involved guidance for BRA throughout the technology's life cycle. We identified 129 methodological approaches for BRA in the documents. The most commonly referred to descriptive frameworks were the Problem, Objectives, Alternatives, Consequences, Trade-offs, Uncertainty, Risk and Linked decisions and the Benefit-Risk Action Team. Multicriteria decision analysis was the most commonly cited quantitative framework. We also identified the most cited metric indices, estimation and utility survey techniques that could be used for BRA.

conclusionsMethods for BRA in HTA are less established. The findings of this review, however, will support and inform the elaboration of the Brazilian methodological guideline on BRA for HTA. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/69T3V.

Indexed as

Technology Assessment, BiomedicalBrazilGuidelines as TopicHumansRisk Assessmenthealth policypublic healthstatistics & research methods

Identifiers

PMID38851235
PMCPMC11163601

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.