ReviewAdvances in therapy2026
Optimizing Patient-Reported Outcomes for HTA Success: Lessons from German Early Benefit Assessments.
Review in Advances in therapy, 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionUse and relevance of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in health technology assessment (HTA) has increased, reflecting a shift toward patient-centered evaluation. Germany's HTA benefit assessment process, including initial assessment by the Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care (IQWiG) and final resolution by the Federal Joint Committee (G-BA), has driven this shift by prioritizing patient-relevant endpoints such as PROs. However, guidance on optimally designing and positioning PROs in clinical trials to support HTA remains limited. Using Germany as a reference, this study reviewed HTA reports to identify methodological expectations and guidance for PRO evidence generation.
methodsA targeted review of German benefit assessments from January 2019 to August 2024 was conducted. Assessments including PROs in oncology, cardiovascular, immunology/dermatology, and neurology were reviewed. Quantitative and qualitative analyses examined HTA feedback, critiques, and recurring themes related to PRO design, conduct, and analysis.
resultsA total of 249 benefit assessments (283 datapoints) were reviewed. Common PRO critiques reflected nonadherence to IQWiG General Methods such as response (i.e., compliance) rates < 70%, failure to apply the 15% scale-span responder definition, open-label design, and statistical analysis issues. A framework linking methodological critiques to PRO rejection and bias showed that the frequency of a critique did not necessarily correspond to rejection of PRO data. PRO rejection was most strongly associated with inadequate instrument validation, low or imbalanced response rates, differing observation periods across treatment arms, and incomplete follow-up.
conclusionsEarly optimization of PRO selection, trial design, and analyses may enhance PRO acceptance in German HTA and may strengthen access in other markets. Nonacceptance of PRO results was driven primarily by methodological and operational design misalignment rather than by lack of patient relevance. While several factors can be addressed through early PRO strategy development, operational challenges, particularly related to data completeness, remain difficult to mitigate.
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.