Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37092749›Full record

SynthesisInternational journal of technology assessment in health care2023

Health technology assessment of tests for SARS-CoV-2 and treatments for COVID-19: A proposed approach and best-practice recommendations.

Jamie Elvidge, Ashley Summerfield, Saskia Knies, Bertalan Németh, Zoltán Kaló, Wim Goettsch, Dalia M Dawoud, COVID-19 HTA Best-Practice Development Group

Open access · hybridAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in International journal of technology assessment in health care, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.3field-weighted citation impact, top 8% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Implementing a sandbox approach in health technology assessment: benefits and recommendations.International journal of technology assessment in health care · 2024
    Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 5 institutions in 3 countries.

Jamie ElvidgeScience, Evidence and Analytics Directorate, National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, London, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6154-8091
Ashley SummerfieldCommercial Medicines Directorate, NHS England and NHS Improvement, Leeds, UK.
Saskia KniesDepartment of Development, Science and International Affairs, Zorginstituut Nederland, Diemen, The Netherlands.
Bertalan NémethSyreon Research Institute, Budapest, Hungary.
Zoltán KalóSyreon Research Institute, Budapest, Hungary.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7762-2607
Wim GoettschDivision of Pharmacoepidemiology and Clinical Pharmacology, Utrecht Institute for Pharmaceutical Sciences, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8022-7496
Dalia M DawoudScience, Evidence and Analytics Directorate, National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, London, UK.
COVID-19 HTA Best-Practice Development Group
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence · GBSyreon Research Institute (Hungary) · HUNHS EnglandUtrecht University · NLZorginstituut Nederland · NL

Funding

Horizon 2020 Framework Programme 825162
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo develop best-practice guidance for health technology assessment (HTA) agencies when appraising diagnostic tests for SARS-CoV-2 and treatments for COVID-19.

methodsWe used a policy sandbox approach to develop best-practice guidance for HTA agencies to approach known challenges associated with assessing tests and treatments for COVID-19. The guidance was developed by a multi-stakeholder workshop of twenty-one participants representing HTA agencies, clinical and patient experts, academia, industry, and a payer, from across Europe and North America. The workshop was supported by extensive background work to identify the key challenges, including: targeted reviews of existing COVID-related methods guidance for assessing interventions and clinical guidelines, engagement with clinical experts, a survey and workshop of HTA agencies, a systematic review of published economic evaluations, and a workshop of health economic modelers.

resultsWe suggest HTA agencies should consider using other types of evidence (e.g., real world) where high-quality randomized controlled trials may be lacking and healthcare systems would value timely HTA outputs. A "living" HTA approach may be useful, given the context of an evolving disease, scientific understanding and evidence base, allowing for decisions to be efficiently revisited in response to new information; particularly, if supported by a common "disease model" for COVID-19. Innovative ways of engaging with the public and clinicians, and early engagement with regulators and payers, are recommended.

conclusionsHTA agencies should consider the elements of this guidance that are most suited to their existing processes to enable them to assess the effectiveness and value of interventions for COVID-19.

Indexed as

COVID-19SARS-CoV-2Delivery of Health CareEuropeHumansTechnology Assessment, BiomedicalbiomedicalCoronaviruscost effectivenesspandemicstechnology assessment

Identifiers

PMID37092749
PMCPMC11570043
OpenAlexW4366819711

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.