SynthesisApplied health economics and health policy2025
Selection and Prioritization of Medical Devices for HTA Evaluation: A Systematic Review of Existing Approaches.
Synthesis in Applied health economics and health policy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundEfficient resource allocation in the health technology assessment process of medical devices requires a robust selection and prioritization of medical devices for evaluation. Despite its importance, there is currently no generally accepted approach for such a prioritization task, and a comprehensive review of adaptable approaches is needed.
objectiveOur study aimed to provide a comprehensive review of existing approaches that could be used or adapted to select and prioritize medical devices for health technology assessment (HTA) evaluation.
methodsSearches were conducted in PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and the databases of the International Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment and the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. Following the screening, analyses and comparisons were based on data such as publication year, target jurisdiction, decision context, health technology focus, methods used for value assessment and included attributes, and the social methods used for stakeholder engagement.
resultsFrom 1055 identified records, 51 studies were eligible for review. Only 31 records mentioned the value assessment method used and, although there was a wide variety of techniques found in this sample, the majority of them (77%) applied multicriteria decision analysis. A total of 22 studies were specifically focused on HTA prioritization and, within this set, the most frequently used value attributes were Clinical efficacy and/or effectiveness (n = 21, 95%), Impact of the disease (n = 13, 59%), and Ethical, social and legal aspects (n = 11, 50%). Social methods commonly implemented were questionnaires/surveys and the Delphi technique, with 15 and 7 reported applications, respectively.
conclusionsA wide variety of methods have been reported to assess value in HTA contexts, and our premise that a generally accepted approach for prioritizing medical devices for HTA is still lacking was confirmed. Despite such heterogeneity, it was noticed that a multicriteria decision analysis is predominantly applied, with both intervention- and disease-related attributes being considered. Underreporting of the approaches used was recurrent, which should be avoided in the future to ensure their transparency and replicability.
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.