ArticleInternational journal of technology assessment in health care2026
Characteristics of published mini and rapid health technology assessments reports: a cross-sectional analysis.
Article in International journal of technology assessment in health care, 2026. 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
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesWhile rapid health technology assessments (HTA) are important for decision makers, there is no universally accepted definition or standardized methods. The objective of this study was to analyze the content and conduct of published rapid and mini-HTA reports.
methodsWe conducted a cross-sectional analysis of rapid and mini-HTA reports identified from the International HTA Database (2014-April 2024) and supplementary searches of HTA agency websites. We extracted descriptive data on rapid HTA products; specifically, which traditional HTA domains were included or omitted, evidence synthesis methods, and approaches to interest-holder (formerly known as stakeholder) engagement. Data analysis was conducted in Stata.
resultsWe included 203 rapid HTA reports. Most frequently included HTA domains were clinical effectiveness (99 percent) and safety (82.3 percent). Legal aspects (12.3 percent) and budget impact analyses (10.8 percent) were less frequently reported. Across reports reviewing clinical effectiveness (n = 201), generic literature searches were the most predominantly self-reported evidence synthesis method (37.8 percent), with updates (1.5 percent) and overviews (2 percent) of systematic reviews less common. Cost-utility analyses were the most commonly self-reported form of economic evaluation (36.2 percent). Additionally, public consultations (68 percent) were the most commonly reported ways to engage with interest holders.
conclusionOur analysis highlights variations across rapid HTA reports and will contribute to wider research aiming to establish a clearer definition and framework of rapid HTAs and inform when and how rapid HTAs are performed. Clearer reporting and justification of simplifications in rapid HTA reports are needed.
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.