ArticleSystematic reviews2026
Systematic review protocol on evidence synthesis for health technology decisions in ultra-rare diseases.
Article in Systematic reviews, 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe term ultra-rare diseases was first introduced in 2004 by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence during the evaluation of drugs indicated for conditions with a prevalence of fewer than 1 case per 50,000 people. This review aims to systematically examine the clinical evidence synthesis practices used worldwide to support decision-making on the incorporation of new drugs for treating ultra-rare diseases and to identify the definitions of ultra-rare diseases adopted internationally.
methodsThis review follows the JBI methodology for reviews of textual evidence, including narrative reports, expert opinions, and policy documents. Eligible sources will include texts and studies addressing patients with ultra-rare diseases. The phenomenon of interest is the set of methods and practices used for synthesizing clinical evidence to inform the incorporation of health technologies for ultra-rare genetic diseases. This review focuses on the context of global health technology assessment (HTA) agencies. Searches will be conducted in the PubMed, Embase, CENTRAL, and Virtual Health Library databases, as well as on the websites of major international HTA agencies. Study selection, data extraction, and risk-of-bias assessment will be performed independently and in duplicate. Proportional meta-analyses will be conducted to summarize the frequency of study designs, outcomes, and recommendations according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach applied by HTA agencies when assessing drugs for ultra-rare diseases. EXPECTED
resultsThe findings of this review are expected to inform the development of methodological guidelines for evidence synthesis in ultra-rare diseases-from defining ultra-rare conditions to establishing best practices for evidence generation and evaluation. In the long term, the results may guide strategies to address methodological challenges in primary studies on the efficacy and safety of health technologies for ultra-rare diseases, such as strengthening national patient registries and promoting multicenter collaborative research. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD420250652106.
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.