ArticleInternational journal of technology assessment in health care2025
Recommended methods for the collection of clinical expert judgment in rare diseases: Generating evidence to support reimbursement of orphan drugs.
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. 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
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDeveloping therapies for rare diseases is challenging due to limited evidence and high degrees of uncertainty regarding the value of new treatments. Clinical expert judgment can inform modeling assumptions and address areas of uncertainty in reimbursement submissions. As current protocols do not adequately address the challenges faced in rare diseases, this research aimed to generate recommendations for the collection and reporting of clinical expert judgment in rare diseases.
methodsAn international group of industry, payer, and patient experts with a background in rare diseases participated in a roundtable meeting, which aimed to identify practical challenges in and solutions for gathering clinical insights to aid reimbursement decisions for rare disease therapies. Recommendations were cocreated through iterative discussions and group agreement.
resultsDevelopers should proactively identify uncertainties that expert judgment can address, in parallel with early evidence generation planning. Expert judgment method(s) depend on the uncertainties, with those key to decision-making requiring more robust and time-intensive methods. For highly complex and uncertain topics, methods should facilitate consensus building and expression of diverse views. Given the scarcity of rare disease experts, a high time burden falls on a few experts. Developers should engage diverse stakeholder groups to integrate broader clinical perspectives and reduce reliance on specific individuals while approaching conflicts of interest pragmatically and transparently.
conclusionsThese recommendations create a blueprint for developers of rare disease therapies to conduct high-quality clinical expert judgment studies. Hence, developers can present more robust evidence to inform key areas of uncertainty in reimbursement decisions, where empirical evidence is unavailable.
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.