Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41114469›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of technology assessment in health care2025

MAPPING current decision-making pathways and reimbursement processes for high-risk medical devices in EU/EEA member states and the UK: a scoping review.

Rasha A Alshaikh, Kieran A Walsh, Fatma El-Komy, Susan Spillane, Marie Carrigan, Louise Larkin, Patricia Harrington, Michelle O'Neill, Conor Teljeur, Máirín Ryan and 1 more

Abstract readScoping Review
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. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

11 authors.

Rasha A AlshaikhSchool of Pharmacy, https://ror.org/03265fv13University College Cork, Cork, Ireland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2747-5084
Kieran A WalshSchool of Pharmacy, https://ror.org/03265fv13University College Cork, Cork, Ireland.
Fatma El-KomySchool of Pharmacy, https://ror.org/03265fv13University College Cork, Cork, Ireland.
Susan SpillaneHealth Technology Assessment Directorate, https://ror.org/01xt79e13Health Information and Quality Authority, Cork, Ireland.
Marie CarriganHealth Technology Assessment Directorate, https://ror.org/01xt79e13Health Information and Quality Authority, Cork, Ireland.
Louise LarkinHealth Technology Assessment Directorate, https://ror.org/01xt79e13Health Information and Quality Authority, Cork, Ireland.
Patricia HarringtonHealth Technology Assessment Directorate, https://ror.org/01xt79e13Health Information and Quality Authority, Cork, Ireland.
Michelle O'NeillHealth Technology Assessment Directorate, https://ror.org/01xt79e13Health Information and Quality Authority, Cork, Ireland.
Conor TeljeurHealth Technology Assessment Directorate, https://ror.org/01xt79e13Health Information and Quality Authority, Cork, Ireland.
Máirín RyanHealth Technology Assessment Directorate, https://ror.org/01xt79e13Health Information and Quality Authority, Cork, Ireland.
Caitriona M O'DriscollSchool of Pharmacy, https://ror.org/03265fv13University College Cork, Cork, Ireland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThe reimbursement of, and subsequent patient access to, high-risk medical devices (MD) and in vitro diagnostics (IVD) across Europe often vary. The Health Technology Assessment Regulation (HTAR) aims to standardize clinical evaluations through Joint Clinical Assessments. Still, national differences in reimbursement frameworks and evidence integration for MD/IVD may impede the realization of HTAR's expected benefits. This review aims to map existing reimbursement frameworks for high-risk MD/IVD, identify key oversight structures, and evaluate the use of comparative effectiveness and safety evidence in reimbursement decisions across the EU/EEA/UK.

methodsA scoping review was conducted according to the registered protocol (osf.io/65bdk) and was reported following the PRISMA-ScR guidelines. Results were validated through direct engagement with national organizations.

resultsReimbursement frameworks across the EU/EEA/UK for MD/IVD vary significantly. Of the thirty-four countries reviewed, twenty-three incorporate HTA for MD/IVD reimbursement decisions; of these, only eleven countries have a formal HTA process as part of reimbursement pathways. Eight countries have structured mechanisms to address safety and effectiveness evidence uncertainty. Furthermore, twelve countries have primarily centralized processes, while six rely on regional or local decision-making.

conclusionsThis review highlights the variations in how countries integrate HTA into reimbursement frameworks for MD/IVD, how the national decisions are implemented, and how the evidence uncertainty is assessed. Some countries have a well-established reimbursement framework with formal HTA components, whereas others rely on ad hoc HTA processes. Understanding these differences can help optimize the use of HTAR-generated evidence. Further research is needed to capture ongoing reforms in response to the HTAR.

Indexed as

Decision MakingEquipment and SuppliesInsurance, Health, ReimbursementReimbursement MechanismsTechnology Assessment, BiomedicalEuropeEuropean UnionHumansUnited KingdomEU health policyhealth technology assessmentin vitro diagnosticsjoint clinical assessmentreimbursement

Identifiers

PMID41114469
PMCPMC12592967

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.