SynthesisBMC medical informatics and decision making2025
Structured expert elicitation for long-term survival outcomes in health technology assessment: a systematic review.
Synthesis in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Applications of Structural Expert Elicitations for Economic Evaluations: A Systematic Review Update.PharmacoEconomics · 2026Pooled it
- Structured expert elicitation for long-term survival outcomes in health technology assessment: a systematic review.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2025Pooled it
- Structured Expert Elicitation of Long-Term Survival in Non-small Cell Lung Cancer: A Case Study Applying Guidance from NICE Technical Support Document 26.Applied health economics and health policy · 2026Article
- Expert opinion in decision-making: a systematic review of methods and the INTEGRITY framework for incorporating expert consultation into research.Research integrity and peer review · 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundExtrapolation of immature survival data is integral to health technology assessment (HTA) but is often associated with large uncertainty. Incorporation of expert judgements can help to address this uncertainty, but often these judgements are perceived as being “best guesses” due to a lack of methodological transparency. This review assesses the current implementation and reporting of structured expert elicitation for long-term survival outcomes in the broader literature and recent submissions to the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE).
methodsThree literature databases were searched: MEDLINE via Ovid, Embase, and Web of Science. The search algorithm included terms to identify articles which obtained expert judgements for survival extrapolation. A pearl-growing approach was also employed using three seed papers to supplement the electronic searches. To identify recent NICE technology appraisals in oncology, the NICE guidance database was searched.
resultsThe search of the broader literature identified six studies which utilised structured expert elicitation for long-term survival outcomes. Four NICE technology appraisals were identified to have used structured expert elicitation between October 2023 and October 2024. The reporting and conduct of elicitation for survival quantities was variable in detail and rigour in both the broader literature and NICE submissions. Despite the requirement for significant resource investment within the process, elicited values are variably used within analyses and are predominantly used as qualitative external validation. At all points throughout the elicitation, including planning, conduct and reporting, there appears to be a considerable lack of technical detail, which in the context of NICE appraisals may hinder full consideration of the elicited values by reviewing committees.
conclusionsCurrently, the methods and limited reporting structures being used to elicit long-term survival outcomes are not fit for purpose. This review highlights key areas for improvement and identifies examples of good practice when conducting structured expert elicitations for long-term survival outcomes.
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.