Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39351904›Full record

ArticleJournal of comparative effectiveness research2024

Access in all areas? A round up of developments in market access and HTA: part 5.

Alice Beattie, Francisco Olivença, Catrin Treharne, Sreeram V Ramagopalan

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of comparative effectiveness research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

4 authors.

Alice BeattieLane Clark & Peacock LLP, London, W1U 1DQ, UK.
Francisco OlivençaLane Clark & Peacock LLP, London, W1U 1DQ, UK.
Catrin TreharneLane Clark & Peacock LLP, London, W1U 1DQ, UK.
Sreeram V RamagopalanLane Clark & Peacock LLP, London, W1U 1DQ, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In this latest update, we explore the recent announcement by Canada's Drug Agency (CDA-AMC, formerly CADTH) on their pilot to include the societal perspective in the evaluation of certain new medicines; a recent Office of Health Economics (OHE) report on the evaluation of HTA agency methods over time; and publications examining the impact of Project Orbis on patient access to oncology treatments.

Indexed as

Health Services AccessibilityTechnology Assessment, BiomedicalCanadaHumansCanada's drug agencyhealth technology assessmentmarket accessOffice of Health Economicsoncologypatient accessProject Orbissocietal perspective

Identifiers

PMID39351904
PMCPMC11542086

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.