ArticleInternational journal of technology assessment in health care2025
Trend, application, and reporting of Mini-health technology assessment: an evidence mapping.
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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study aims to systematically identify and summarize the key characteristics of Mini-Health Technology Assessment (Mini-HTA) and assess the completeness of its basic reporting information, providing a theoretical foundation for developing future reporting guidelines..
methodsA comprehensive search for Mini-HTAs was performed using CNKI, Wanfang Data, VIP, CBM, PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, HTA database, and major HTA-related websites from inception until February 2024. The completeness of basic information reporting in Mini-HTAs was assessed using the INAHTA checklist. The key characteristics of the included Mini-HTAs were summarized descriptively. Microsoft Excel 2019 was used to analyze and visually present the data.
resultsA total of 21 Mini-HTA reports were included, with the highest number published in 2021 (5 reports, 23.8 percent). China contributed the most reports (18 reports, 85.7 percent). The most common assessment purpose was technology comparison (15 reports, 71.4 percent), with general hospitals being the predominant assessment setting (17 reports, 80.9 percent), and drugs being the most frequently assessed technology type (14 reports, 66.7 percent). The INAHTA checklist evaluation identified notable deficiencies in reporting key methodological aspects, including participant roles, conflict of interest statements, data sources, literature search strategies, and methods for data assessment and analysis.
conclusionMini-HTAs have significantly increased in China since 2020, mainly in technology comparison, drug evaluation, and general hospitals. However, gaps remain in reporting key aspects, such as participant roles, conflict of interest, and data sources. Future efforts should focus on refining reporting guidelines to improve consistency and address these reporting deficiencies in Mini-HTA.
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.