ArticleHealth research policy and systems2025
Insights and implications: an analysis of the studies undertaken by Health Technology Assessment in India (HTAIn).
Article in Health research policy and systems, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
backgroundHealth technology assessment sets explicit priorities to maximize health gains and support universal health coverage. Health Technology Assessment in India (HTAIn) was set up to ensure efficient allocation of public health expenditure impacting 1.4 billion Indians. We conducted an analysis to summarize the research undertaken by HTAIn thus far and recommend the way forward.
methodsWe shortlisted 33 of the 39 studies published by HTAIn on their website in October 2023. We analysed diseases treated, types of interventions evaluated, aspects of HTA addressed and whether the intervention was cost effective. The quality of each study was rated against Drummond's checklist and the Indian Reference Case. Results were charted and tabulated where possible, and a narrative synthesis of findings was set down.
resultsOverall, 24.2% (n = 8) of the studies focused on interventions for maternal and neonatal disorders, 33.3% (n = 11) of the interventions were devices, and 45.5% (n = 15) were intended for screening. All of the studies addressed economic efficiency, 75.8% (n = 25) evaluated clinical efficacy, and 54.5% (n = 18) spoke of effectiveness; 45.5% (n = 15) addressed all three. Against the Indian Reference Case, six studies scored above 8, and the rest scored between 4.55 and 7.95. Equity and heterogeneity (population subgroup analysis) are the parameters that fared worst.
conclusionsA formal framework for choosing interventions for evaluation would make the decision-making process explicit. While difficult to evaluate, operational feasibility, equity and heterogeneity need to be appraised to ensure that policy-makers draw considered conclusions. We recommend that areas for disinvestment be identified, given health budget constraints.
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.