ArticleBMJ open2025
Evidence quality and uncertainties considered in appraisal documents of drugs for rare diseases in England and Germany: a data extraction protocol.
Article in BMJ open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- A comparative analysis of health technology assessment decision-making for cancer drugs in Germany and England.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
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
introductionRare disease treatments (RDTs) promise considerable patient benefit but the evidence to demonstrate their value in health technology assessment (HTA) is often limited. HTA outcomes for RDTs vary across countries and there are differences in how uncertainty is dealt with by HTA agencies. Yet, there is limited comparative research assessing how different HTA agencies consider issues affecting evidence quality and uncertainty in RDT appraisals. This protocol describes a systematic and consistent approach for data extraction from RDT appraisal documents produced to inform decisions by HTA agencies. By documenting data extraction rules transparently, we ensure reproducibility and reliability of analyses of the extracted data. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will select RDT appraisals issued by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) in England and the Federal Joint Committee (GBA) in Germany, using predefined inclusion criteria. We will extract data from appraisal documents in accordance with the rules set out in this protocol. We will analyse the extracted data to investigate how issues affecting evidence quality and uncertainty as documented in appraisals are considered, highlighting the similarities and differences between countries and identifying factors that are associated with HTA outcomes. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine (reference number 29156). Study results will be submitted for publication in peer-reviewed journals.
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.