Evidence mapPaperPMID 39746782Full record

ArticleBMJ evidence-based medicine2025

Exploring adaptive health technology assessment for evaluating 10 cancer interventions: insights and lessons from a pilot study in India.

Srobana Ghosh, C S Pramesh, Manju Sengar, Priya Ranganathan, Francis Ruiz, Tabassum Wadasadawala, Prakash Nayak, Jayashree Thorat, Apurva Ashok, Malkeet Singh and 3 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ evidence-based medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Next-generation methods in health technology assessment (HTA): need, rigor, and implementability.International journal of technology assessment in health care · 2026
    Review
  2. Review
  3. 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

13 authors.

Srobana GhoshCenter for Global Development, London, UK srobana.ghosh@gmail.com.ORCID 0000-0002-9588-0973
C S PrameshTata Memorial Centre, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India.
Manju SengarTata Memorial Centre, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India.
Priya RanganathanDepartment of Anaesthesia, Tata Memorial Centre, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India.
Francis RuizLondon School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-5183-3959
Tabassum WadasadawalaTata Memorial Centre, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India.
Prakash NayakTata Memorial Centre, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India.
Jayashree ThoratTata Memorial Centre, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India.
Apurva AshokTata Memorial Centre, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India.
Malkeet SinghCenter for Global Development, Washington, District of Columbia, USA.
Abha MehndirattaCenter for Global Development, Washington, District of Columbia, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-3045-1649
Cassandra NemzoffCenter for Global Development, Washington, District of Columbia, USA.
Hiral Anil ShahCenter for Global Development, Washington, District of Columbia, USA.

Funding

Gates Foundation INV-003239
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHealth technology assessment (HTA) is a valuable tool for informing the efficient allocation of resources in healthcare. However, the resource-intensive nature of HTA can limit its application, especially in low-resource settings. Adapting HTA processes by assessing the available international evidence offers a pragmatic approach to provide evidence for decision-making where resources are constrained.

objectiveThis study piloted an adaptive HTA (aHTA) method to evaluate 10 cancer interventions.

methodsWe arranged a joint collaboration with the International Decision Support Initiative and the National Cancer Grid in India to form a working group of clinicians and health economists. We conducted a rapid review of HTA reports and economic evaluations for ten prioritised common cancer interventions for breast, lung, and head and neck cancers. We extracted data on cost-effectiveness, conducted a price benchmarking analysis, estimated treatment costs and calculated the treatment's share of the national insurance family allowance. Finally, we determined through qualitative appraisal whether the intervention would likely to be considered cost-effective in the Indian context.

resultsOf the 10 interventions assessed, 9 had sufficient evidence to make determinations on the likely cost-effectiveness. Three were potentially cost-effective (one after a price discount and another by using the generic price), while five were not, and one was only cost-effective in a subgroup. One intervention required a full HTA due to remaining uncertainty. Information on the likely cost-effectiveness, clinical and safety benefits, and treatment costs was consistently found through publicly available evidence. Assessment methods were modified slightly across the 10 interventions, including expanding the data extraction criteria, updating the calculations and broadening the evidence retrieval.

conclusionThe aHTA method is a feasible resource-sensitive alternative to traditional HTA for informing decision-making in resource-constrained settings when ample international data on cost-effectiveness for a given topic is available.

Indexed as

NeoplasmsTechnology Assessment, BiomedicalCost-Benefit AnalysisHumansIndiaPilot ProjectsDelivery of Health CareEconomicsGlobal HealthHealth Care Economics and OrganizationsHealth Planning

Identifiers

PMID39746782
PMCPMC12213987

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.