ArticlePloS one2019
Health technology reassessment in the Brazilian public health system: Analysis of the current status.
Article in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Health technology reassessment and disinvestment instruments: a scoping review.Health research policy and systems · 2026Review
- A comparative analysis of patient participation in health technology assessment systems worldwide: trends and practices.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
- Stakeholders' perspectives on disinvestment of low-value healthcare interventions and practices in Malaysia: an online survey.International journal of technology assessment in health care · 2024Article
- The Critical Intersect of Regulations, Health Technology Assessment, and Drug Safety Assessments.Drug safety · 2024Article
- Building a National Reassessment Process for Oncology Drugs: Lessons Learned by the Canadian Real-World Evidence for Value of Cancer Drugs (CanREValue) Collaboration through a Simulated Reassessment Exercise.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2021Article
- Considerations for Developing a Reassessment Process: Report from the Canadian Real-World Evidence for Value of Cancer Drugs (CanREValue) Collaboration's Reassessment and Uptake Working Group.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2021Article
- A landscape analysis of health technology assessment capacity in the Association of South-East Asian Nations region.Health research policy and systems · 2021Article
- Using a Formal Strategy of Priority Setting to Mitigate Austerity Effects Through Gains in Value: The Role of Program Budgeting and Marginal Analysis (PBMA) in the Brazilian Public Healthcare System.Applied health economics and health policy · 2021Article
- The challenges of implementing low-dose computed tomography for lung cancer screening in low- and middle-income countries.Nature cancer · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe reassessment of technologies and services offered by healthcare systems is recent initiative and still without a widely adopted and evaluated method. To a better understanding of this process in Brazil, we have described the health technology reassessment (HTR) performed by the National Committee for Health Technology Incorporation (Conitec) into Brazilian public health system (SUS).
methodsA documental, exploratory, descriptive, retrospective study with qualitative-quantitative approach regarding the HTR performed by Conitec from January 2012 to November 2017.
resultsAfter applying the criteria of inclusion and exclusion, we selected 47 technologies for this study. The vast majority of the demands (41 demands) came from the public sector, and only six from the private sector. Most of the requests referred to the exclusion of specific indication; followed by extension of use, withdraw of the technology from SUS, maintenance, and restriction of use. The dimensions of analysis found in the recommendation reports were scientific evidence on efficacy, effectiveness and safety, disease-related issues, issues related to the use of technology, costs, and social participation. However, these dimensions were not included in all analysis, and a standardized structure of the reports has not been observed. The most relevant decision factors considered for decision-making were efficacy, safety and use of the technology.
conclusionDuring a six-year period of Conitec actuation, we could find some reassessments of technologies that are available in SUS. We observed that these activities had enabled progress, however, they are still not yet structured, with gaps in the selection process, and the assessment since no methodology and criteria for proper conduct were established.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.