ArticleDigital health
Comparison of health technology assessments for digital therapeutics in Germany, the United Kingdom and France.
Article in Digital health. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Potential of digital applications for self-management and other outcomes in inflammatory rheumatic diseases: a systematic literature review.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Pooled it
- Digital therapeutics for depression in Germany: A systematic app review.Internet interventions · 2026Article
- Review of the Use of Digital Therapeutics for Obesity Treatment: Toward a Psychological Phenotyping.Advances in nutrition (Bethesda, Md.) · 2026Review
- Clinical utility of digital technologies in Parkinson's disease.Journal of neural transmission (Vienna, Austria : 1996) · 2026Review
- Bridging Gaps in Women's Heart Health: User-Centered Needs Assessment Informed by Patient and Clinician Interviews.JMIR human factors · 2026Article
- Health economic evaluations of digital health technologies-a rapid review of applied methods.Frontiers in digital health · 2026Review
- Digital Therapeutics and Blended Care in Major Depressive Disorder: Current Evidence and Future Directions.Advances in experimental medicine and biology · 2026Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Digital therapeutics (DTx) are promising technologies. However, current assessment and access frameworks, when they exist, are heterogeneous and fragmented. We analysed and compared health technology assessment (HTA) criteria for DTx across European countries that had assessed the same DTx products. This allowed us to conduct a direct comparison of these countries' DTx assessment frameworks. Methods: A scoping review identified HTA DTx documents from European HTA bodies with specific DTx frameworks in place. The HTAs of the same DTx products assessed across multiple countries were then extracted and analysed. Results: Deprexis and Velibra were the only DTx products assessed by multiple countries: Deprexis, indicated for depression, was assessed by Germany, the United Kingdom (UK) and France; and Velibra, indicated for anxiety, was assessed by Germany and the UK. There are notable differences among those frameworks, but what they share is an emphasis on the context-specific positioning of products within the disease landscape, choice of comparators and usage and usability data. Safety data are not a major focus in DTx assessments in these countries, but a request is often made for the addition and evaluation of risk-flagging systems. Conclusion: The majority of European countries do not have a specific framework in place for the assessment of DTx, and major differences exist among recently implemented frameworks. The current policy landscape at the European Union level offers an opportunity to establish a harmonized framework for the assessment of DTx and possibly faster access and integration of such promising technologies.
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.