ReviewBMJ open2024
Managing experts' conflicts of interest in the EU Joint Clinical Assessment.
Review in BMJ open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Conflicts of interest as a barrier to the development of health technology assessment in Iran: a qualitative study.Journal of health, population, and nutrition · 2026Article
- Joint Clinical Assessment in the EU HTA Regulation-Would Drugs Supported by Single-Arm Trials Fit Under Evaluation?Journal of market access & health policy · 2026Article
- Implementing the EU HTA regulation and joint clinical assessment: a multi-stakeholder perspective from Italy.International journal of technology assessment in health care · 2026Article
- Joint Clinical Assessments in Europe: Implications for Market Access, Reimbursement, and National HTA Alignment.Pharmaceutical medicine · 2026Review
- The EU Health Technology Assessment Regulation Halo Effect: Are Cross-Functional Teams Ready?Journal of market access & health policy · 2025Article
- Patient and public involvement in health technology assessment committees: who is free from conflicts of interest?Global & regional health technology assessmentArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis article critically evaluates the European Commission's 2024 Implementing Regulation (IR) on conflicts of interest (COIs) management for stakeholders in the European Union (EU) Joint Clinical Assessment (JCA), with a focus on individual experts such as clinicians and patient representatives. KEY
findingsThe IR is the first EU-level framework to assess COIs in the context of health technology assessment (HTA). The regulation requires experts involved in the JCA to submit annual declarations of interest for both financial and non-financial interests and presents a matrix on whether these conflicts should disqualify them from participating in the joint work. We compared the IR to COIs-management approaches from other European national HTA bodies and found that the IR is closely modelled after the French guidelines. Concerns include potential over-representation of experts from a small number of countries, lack of guidance on organisational COIs, and ambiguities in how the size of financial interests are disclosed. Unclear resource allocation for enforcement could also hinder compliance.
conclusionsThe IR marks progress in EU-wide HTA collaboration, but improvements in transparency, expert diversity, and comprehensive COIs management are needed to ensure impartiality in the JCA process.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.