Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39845519›Full record

ArticleDigital health

Comparison of health technology assessments for digital therapeutics in Germany, the United Kingdom and France.

Emanuele Arcà, Dorothea Heldt, Martina Smith

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Clinical utility of digital technologies in Parkinson's disease.Journal of neural transmission (Vienna, Austria : 1996) · 2026
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. 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

3 authors.

Emanuele ArcàOPEN Health, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6729-9997
Dorothea HeldtOPEN Health, Berlin, Germany.
Martina SmithOPEN Health, London, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

accessDiGAdigital health technologydigital literacydigital therapeuticsEU health policyhealth technology assessmentreimbursement frameworkUK health policyuse and uptake

Identifiers

PMID39845519
PMCPMC11752730

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.