Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37317832›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of technology assessment in health care2023

The Beneluxa Initiative domain task force health technology assessment: a comparison of member countries' past health technology assessments.

Rick A Vreman, Daan van Hoof, Anna Nachtnebel, Joël Daems, Marc van de Casteele, Emer Fogarty, Roisin Adams, Lonneke Timmers

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article 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 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. 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.

Rick A VremanNational Health Care Institute (Zorginstituut Nederland, ZIN), Diemen, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2076-322X
Daan van HoofNational Health Care Institute (Zorginstituut Nederland, ZIN), Diemen, The Netherlands.
Anna NachtnebelAustrian Social Insurance (Dachverband der österreichischen Sozialversicherungen, DVSV), Vienna, Austria.
Joël DaemsNational Institute for Health Insurance and Disability (RIZIV-INAMI), Brussels, Belgium.
Marc van de CasteeleNational Institute for Health Insurance and Disability (RIZIV-INAMI), Brussels, Belgium.
Emer FogartyNational Centre for Pharmacoeconomics, Dublin, Ireland.
Roisin AdamsNational Centre for Pharmacoeconomics, Dublin, Ireland.
Lonneke TimmersNational Health Care Institute (Zorginstituut Nederland, ZIN), Diemen, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThis study aimed to compare assessments between Beneluxa Initiative member countries' assessments and identify alignments and divergences.

methodsA retrospective comparative analysis was performed that investigated (i) number and type of assessed indications (for Austria (AT), Belgium (BE), Ireland (IE), and the Netherlands (NL)); (ii) added benefit conclusions (for BE, IE, and NL); and (iii) the main arguments underlying differences in conclusions (for BE, IE, and NL). Data were retrieved directly from agency representatives and from public HTA reports. European Medicines Agency approved indications were included for drugs assessed between 2016 and 2020, excluding veterinary drugs, generics, and biosimilars.

resultsOnly 44 (10 percent) of the 444 included indications were assessed by all four member countries. Between any pair of two countries, the overlap was higher, from 63 (AT-NL) to 188 (BE-IE). Added benefit conclusions matched exactly in 62-74 percent of the indications, depending on the countries compared. In the remaining cases, most often a difference of one added benefit level was observed (e.g., higher vs. equal relative effect). Contradictory outcomes were very rare: only three cases were observed (lower vs. higher effect). When assessing the underlying arguments for seven cases with different outcomes, differences were attributable to slight differences in weighing of evidence and uncertainties rather than disagreement on aspects within the assessment itself.

conclusionsDespite high variability in European HTA procedures, collaboration on HTA between the Beneluxa Initiative member countries is very feasible and would likely not result in added benefit conclusions that would be very different from added benefit conclusions in national procedures.

Indexed as

Biosimilar PharmaceuticalsTechnology Assessment, BiomedicalAustriaNetherlandsRetrospective StudiesBiosimilar Pharmaceuticalsadded benefitBeneluxaBeneluxa Initiativecomparative analysiscost-effectiveness assessmentDTF-HTAhealth technology assessmentHTA systems scienceinternational collaborationrelative effectiveness assessment

Identifiers

PMID37317832
PMCPMC11570237

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.