ArticleJournal of market access & health policy2026
The EU-Joint Clinical Assessment Guidance Documents Fail to Address the Significance of Systematic Literature Reviews and Deviate from the State of the Art.
Article in Journal of market access & health policy, 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.
- The European Union's Health Technology Assessment Regulation (EU-HTA R) Will Prosper Despite Major Setbacks.Journal of market access & health policy · 2026Article
- Epistemological Tensions in the EU HTA Joint Clinical Assessment: The Illusion of Judgment-Free Evaluation.Journal of market access & health policy · 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
This paper summarizes an analysis of the Joint Clinical Assessment (JCA) subgroup's recommendations for systematic literature reviews (SLRs). While the JCA offers clear guidance on study classification, exclusion criteria reporting, and PRISMA diagram use, several of its recommendations diverge from established best practices in evidence-based medicine (EBM). A comparison with recognized guidelines, such as those from Cochrane and EUnetHTA, reveals that the JCA guidance may lack reliability, comprehensiveness, and reproducibility. Aligning JCA recommendations with gold standards in SLR methodology would address these shortcomings and enhance methodological rigor.
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.