Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40452233›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of technology assessment in health care2025

Defining early health technology assessment: building consensus using Delphi technique.

Janneke P C Grutters, Janet Bouttell, Payam Abrishami, Sulafa Y M Ahmed, Amanda Cole, Dalia Dawoud, Carla Fernández-Barceló, Geert W J Frederix, Neil Hawkins, Jonathan Karnon and 13 more

Abstract readConsensus Statement
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of technology assessment in health care, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. What is new in the early health technology assessment's new definition?International journal of technology assessment in health care · 2026
    Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. The HTAi Early HTA Definition: A Welcome Milestone, and What Must Follow.International journal of technology assessment in health care · 2025
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Commentary: Reflections on defining Early HTA.International journal of technology assessment in health care · 2025
    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

23 authors.

Janneke P C GruttersScience Department IQ Health, https://ror.org/05wg1m734Radboud University Medical Centre, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Janet BouttellCentre for Healthcare Equipment and Technology Adoption, https://ror.org/05y3qh794Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust, Nottingham, UK.
Payam Abrishamihttps://ror.org/01gy2bm93VDL Enabling Technologies Group, Eindhoven, The Netherlands.
Sulafa Y M AhmedFaculty of Engineering and Technology, University of Gezira, Wad Madani, Sudan.
Amanda Colehttps://ror.org/00dtqsj35Office of Health Economics, London, UK.
Dalia DawoudFaculty of Pharmacy, https://ror.org/03q21mh05Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt.
Carla Fernández-BarcelóCoreva Scientific GmbH & Co. KG, Königswinter, Germany.
Geert W J FrederixDepartment of Epidemiology and Health Economics, Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Neil HawkinsHealth Economics and Health Technology Assessment, School of Health and Wellbeing, https://ror.org/00vtgdb53University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.
Jonathan KarnonFlinders Health and Medical Research Institute, College of Medicine and Public Health, Flinders University, Adelaide, Australia.
Sharon LeadbitterTACS Healthcare, Sydney, Australia.
Christopher McCabeCentre for Public Health and Queen's Business School, https://ror.org/00hswnk62Queens University Belfast, Northern Ireland.
Jani MuellerDepartment of Public Health, https://ror.org/00g0p6g84University of Pretoria, Hatfield, South Africa.
Samuel Owusu AchiawHealth Economics and Health Technology Assessment, School of Health and Wellbeing, https://ror.org/00vtgdb53University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.
Andrew PartingtonFlinders Health and Medical Research Institute, College of Medicine and Public Health, Flinders University, Adelaide, Australia.
Laura Sampietro-ColomAssessment of Innovations Unit, Clinic Barcelona University Hospital, Barcelona, Spain.
Abril SeyahianScience Department IQ Health, https://ror.org/05wg1m734Radboud University Medical Centre, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Rabia Sucuhttps://ror.org/00wf4pt88Management Sciences for Health, Arlington, VA, USA.
Michelle TewMelbourne Health Technology and Value Assessment Collaboration, Melbourne Health Economics, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, https://ror.org/01ej9dk98The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.
Sasha van KatwykInstitute of Health Economics, Edmonton, AB, Canada.
Yves VerbovenEU4HealthSolution, Brussels, Belgium.
Yi WangSaw Swee Hock School of Public Health, National University of Singapore and National University Health System, Singapore.
A Working Group of HTAi

Funding

Horizon 2020 Framework Programme F-113986
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Although early health technology assessment (HTA) is increasingly being used to guide and inform decisions on product development, a consensus definition is currently lacking. A working group under the HTA International Society was established to develop a consensus-based definition of early HTA. The working group developed a definition using an iterative process that comprised five stages of work and included a two-round Delphi survey with 133 respondents in the first and 99 respondents in the second round of the survey, with various backgrounds and levels of expertise. Following this process, the working group reached the first consensus-based definition of early HTA, which is an HTA conducted to inform decisions about subsequent development, research, and/or investment by explicitly evaluating the potential value of a conceptual or actual health technology. In total, 86 (87 percent) of the 99 panelists who participated in the second round of the Delphi survey either strongly agreed or agreed with this definition. This consensus definition represents an important milestone in early HTA. It will enhance the uniformity of terminology, increasing the visibility of research and policy in this field. We also hope that it will act as a catalyst sparkling further research and developments in this discipline.

Indexed as

Delphi TechniqueTechnology Assessment, BiomedicalHumansTerminology as Topicbiomedicaldecision makingtechnology assessmentterminology as a topictranslational researchvalue-based health care

Identifiers

PMID40452233
PMCPMC12178750

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.