ArticleJournal of market access & health policy2024
Technology Assessment vs. Technology Appraisal-How to Strengthen the Science/Value Dichotomy with EU HTA?
Article in Journal of market access & health policy, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- What the future holds: the growing role of real-world evidence in health technology assessment in Malaysia.International journal of technology assessment in health care · 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
- Development of a Performance Measurement Framework for European Health Technology Assessment: Stakeholder-Centric Key Performance Indicators Identified in a Delphi Approach by the European Access Academy.Journal of market access & health policy · 2026Article
- Bridging gaps in clinical trial accessibility and reimbursement for large B-cell lymphoma therapies across Europe.HemaSphere · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Many countries around the world use health technology assessment (HTA) to inform reimbursement and pricing decisions. HTA is often split into two steps, called assessment and appraisal. While the term HTA itself has been defined by international consortia, there is heterogeneity in the way different stakeholders use the terms assessment and appraisal. This creates ambiguity regarding which activities are included in technology assessment. With the new EU HTA Regulation, the HTA community should urgently seek to clarify the distinction between assessment and appraisal, as the regulation aims to centralize the clinical part of technology assessment at the European level. Failure to clarify this terminology will put the ambition of the regulation such as increased efficiency and reduction in duplication at risk. In this article, we argue that the distinction between assessment and appraisal should be seen as a science/value dichotomy. We discuss the transition from centralized assessment activities to country-level appraisal, which should culminate in a categorization of the overall added benefit in a local context. Finally, we touch on the important dimension of uncertainty always present in medical decision making.
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.