ArticleJournal of market access & health policy2025
EU Joint Clinical Assessment: A Framework for Optimising Use with Cost-Effectiveness Decision-Making.
Article in Journal of market access & health policy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Rigorous, transparent and inconclusive: what Europe's first joint clinical assessment reveals about a framework trying to serve everyone.Journal of comparative effectiveness research · 2026Review
- From Joint Clinical Assessment to National Decisions: EU HTA Implementation and Implications for Patient Access.Journal of market access & health policy · 2026Article
- Article
- Proposed Conceptual and Experience-Based Framework for Reaching an Optimal Vaccine Launch Strategy.Vaccines · 2026Article
- Health technology assessment system in Switzerland: Current state, gaps, and prospects for improvement.PLOS global public health · 2026Article
- Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The introduction of the European Union (EU) Joint Clinical Assessment (JCA) under Regulation (EU) 2021/2282 marks a transformative step in harmonizing health technology assessments (HTAs) across EU member states. This article explores the implications of JCA, particularly in oncology, for member states who utilize cost-effectiveness (CE) analysis and health technology developers (HTDs) who produce this evidence. The JCA framework attempts to standardise the assessment of relative clinical effectiveness and safety across the EU to input into national appraisals. Importantly, it excludes economic evaluations that may be required nationally, necessitating HTDs to align their CE models with the JCA PICO (Population/Intervention/Comparator/Outcome) parameters outlined by member states. This article discusses the challenges and opportunities for aligning JCA and CE modelling outcomes, contrasting evidence requirements between JCA and CE frameworks. It highlights the potential increase in complexity due to the diverse comparators in PICO surveys, necessitating the use of indirect comparison methodologies. It further underscores the importance of early communication between HTDs and HTA bodies to ensure timely, relevant, and pragmatic decision-making. By sharing national PICOs upfront to support national evidence generation, the JCA framework's potential to aid high-quality decision-making and improve patient access to innovative medicines can be maximised.
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.