Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41163949›Full record

ArticleGlobal & regional health technology assessment

Patient and public involvement in health technology assessment committees: who is free from conflicts of interest?

Gustavo H Marin, Santiago Hasdeu

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Global & regional health technology assessment. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
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

2 authors.

Gustavo H MarinCUFAR-National University of La Plata- CONICET (PAHO-OMS Collaborating Center), Argentine's HTA Network (RedArETS), REDETSA (PAHO).ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6380-6453
Santiago HasdeuCollective Health Department, Comahue National University, Neuquén, Argentina. RedArETS, REDETSA (PAHO).

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Scientific and technological advances have increased the capacity to prevent diseases, perform diagnoses, and develop innovative treatments. To analyze whether these technologies should be incorporated into healthcare systems, Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Committees were created. There is a debate about who should be part of such committees. Typically, committee members are scientific experts, agents of funding entities (Ministries of Health), and patients as representatives of the community. It is important to reflect on the conflicts of interest that each member may have. Those who come from the scientific sector (universities, research centers) have fewer conflicts of interest and more independence for decision-making. The agents designated as members by the Ministries of Health of each country are usually qualified professionals, but still employees of those who will later have to pay for the technology. The third type of members are patients representing the community. This participation is considered a guarantee of neutrality, however, since patients are affected by the same health problem that is being analyzed, it exists a personal interest in expecting that a new medicine could be accepted to benefit other patients with the same condition (horizontal equity); with a potential risk of not showing the same empathy in recognizing the impact of this decision on other health problems (vertical equity). This text discusses the composition of HTA Committees, the conflicts of interest of its members, and the potential impact of these decisions on equity in access to the population to essential goods.

Indexed as

BiomedicalCitizen participation in science and technologyConflict of interestHealth equityTechnology assessment

Identifiers

PMID41163949
PMCPMC12559928

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.