ArticleRevista brasileira de enfermagem2026
Expert participation in the health technology assessment process: a scoping review.
Article in Revista brasileira de enfermagem, 2026. 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesto map evidence on specialist participation in the health technology assessment process.
methodsa scoping review was conducted using the JBI method, searching the MEDLINE/PubMed, Scopus, EMBASE/Elsevier, WoS/Clarivate, CINAHL, ASP/EBSCO, APA PsycINFO, ERIC, LILACS/BVS, SciELO, and INAHTA databases. Original articles published between 2013 and 2023 were considered. Data were extracted from 89 studies and analyzed using descriptive statistics.
resultsbetween three and 15 specialists (64% of studies) participated. The property attribute was assessed for digital and non-digital devices, management systems, and equipment (93.1%, 94.2%, 60%, 33.3%, respectively), the cost-effectiveness attribute, for medications (60%), and the utility attribute, for medical-surgical procedures (31.6%). Participation was online, using digital and non-digital devices (53% and 52%, respectively), in-person, using devices (77.7%), and mixed, for the other types.
conclusionsit is necessary to structure the assessment according to the specific characteristics of the technology type, providing insights for implementing innovations in this sector.
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.