ArticleJournal of market access & health policy2025
Strengthening the EU Health Technology Assessment Regulation: Integrating National Immunization Technical Advisory Groups for Comprehensive Vaccine Assessments.
Article in Journal of market access & health policy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- National immunisation recommendations: why country-specific evidence and context matter.The Lancet regional health. Europe · 2026Review
- Introducing an Expanded Value Framework in Health Technology Assessment of Vaccines.Journal of market access & health policy · 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundGiven their crucial role in vaccine assessment, National Immunization Technical Advisory Groups (NITAGs) should be considered in the Regulation on Health Technology Assessment (EU HTAR) to maximize the benefits of the EU HTAR for vaccines. This review and perspective piece identifies the gaps arising from NITAGs potential lack of involvement and proposes strategies for involving them.
methodsA targeted literature and guideline review was conducted to evaluate NITAGs' current and future role in relation to the EU HTAR. The impact of the EU HTAR on diverse national HTA frameworks was explored in a three-country case study. Recommendations were developed to leverage strengths and address weaknesses to ensure consistent and cohesive vaccine assessments.
resultsThe case study revealed potential overlaps between NITAGs and the EU HTAR, particularly regarding horizon scanning and joint scientific consultations. The involvement of NITAGs in national assessments varies, influencing how well joint clinical assessment reports will ultimately align with and be applicable to individual Member States.
conclusionsStronger consideration of vaccines within the EU HTAR and NITAG involvement can streamline assessments, reduce duplication, and improve alignment between European and national processes. Strategic actions, including capacity building and collaborations between NITAGs, are key in facilitating this 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.