ArticleCost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E2026
Developing an early scientific advice framework for health technology assessment in Saudi Arabia: insights from global practices and expert consultations.
Article in Cost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E, 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
backgroundEarly Scientific Advice (ESA) is an independent, non-binding guidance from Health Technology Assessment (HTA) bodies or regulatory authorities to manufacturers before market entry. Unlike company sponsored advisory boards focused on commercial purposes. Saudi Arabia lacks a formal ESA framework representing a policy gap as the country adopts value-based care and evidence-driven reimbursement. This study address gap by proposing a Saudi ESA framework informed by global best practices and stakeholder input.
methodsA narrative review literature review was conducted across PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and a grey literature to examine established ESA systems, followed by a roundtable with 15 experts representing policymakers, regulators, clinicians, HTA experts, industry, payers, and academia, ensuring multi-stakeholder input.
resultsBenchmarking ESA models implemented by National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH), and European Medicines Agency (EMA) and integrated roundtable consensus, four key pillars for the Saudi ESA were identified: (1) scope covering both pharmaceuticals and medical devices to support local of new technologies; (2) timing varies for ESA pharmaceuticals, it can be positioned before drug registration during the late stages of clinical development, phase 2 and 3 for diseases of high local relevance, such as rare diseases to align evidence pre-submission while for medical devices ESA would occur primarily in the post-marketing stage; (3) governance positioning the HTA centrally because of its role in value assessment and reimbursement; (4) patients' involvement, facilitated through structured questionnaires, to ensure real-world perspective.
conclusionThe four ESA pillars (scope, timing, governance, patients' involvement) synthesize current international ESA practices and input from local experts, providing a structured foundation to support efficient evidence generation and alignment between regulatory and reimbursement requirements. Pilot evaluation is still required to validate anticipated benefits.
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.