ArticleInternational journal of technology assessment in health care2026
Frameworks for assessing digital health technologies: a scoping review.
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. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Frameworks for assessing digital health technologies: a scoping review.International journal of technology assessment in health care · 2026Article
- Unlocking the Value of Patient Self-Monitoring Technologies: A Multi-Country Framework to Calibrate Payer and HTA Coverage and Reimbursement Considerations with Innovation.Journal of health economics and outcomes research · 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe rapid evolution of digital health technologies (DHTs) presents distinct challenges for health technology assessment (HTA). Existing HTA frameworks, largely designed for conventional health interventions, may not sufficiently address these unique complexities. This scoping review provides an overview of existing assessment frameworks for DHTs, analyzing their purpose and the guidance they offer within the domains of the EUnetHTA Core Model.
methodsThe review followed the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology and PRISMA-ScR guidelines. The literature was identified through searches in PubMed and Embase, covering publications from 2015 to 2024 in English or German, and was complemented by a manual hand search. The studies were screened and analyzed using Covidence, with data categorized inductively based on the EUnetHTA Core Model domains.
resultsOf 3,576 screened records, 15 met inclusion criteria; an additional 45 frameworks were identified through hand searching, resulting in a total of 60 frameworks. Most frameworks focused on digital health applications (68 percent), while only a few addressed technologies such as artificial intelligence (2 percent). The frameworks primarily provide guidance on assessment, with varying focus on evidence requirements. The domains of the EUnetHTA Core Model were variably represented across the frameworks. Technical characteristics were most frequently addressed, while ethical, legal, and organizational domains received limited attention.
conclusionsThis review highlights the diversity of existing frameworks for DHT assessment. This emphasizes the potential relevance of a future standardized framework that contains explanations of the methodological approach to the assessment of DHTs and is modularly customizable depending on the type of technology.
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.