ReviewInternational journal of technology assessment in health care2026
Demonstrating transportability of real-world evidence: what do HTA bodies and health technology developers need?
Review in International journal of technology assessment in health care, 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Real-world evidence (RWE) is reshaping how health technology assessment (HTA) bodies evaluate therapies, yet a critical gap persists: while transportability methods enable researchers to adapt treatment effect estimates from RWE studies in another jurisdiction to local contexts, the field remains unclear on when these analyses impact decision-making. This article synthesizes insights from HTA bodies, health technology developers (HTDs), and methodologists to clarify what is missing from today's transportability conversation. We find that methodological progress has outpaced guidance on its utility; HTDs risk investing in transportability analyses without clear evidence that they reduce key uncertainties or affect recommendations. We identify three fundamental gaps: the absence of objective thresholds for determining whether transportability assumptions are adequately met; limited guidance on when quantitative transportability is needed versus qualitative assessment; and variation in HTA bodies' evaluation and application of transported evidence. These gaps create a critical impasse where HTDs must decide whether to invest in such analyses, while HTA bodies lack standardized frameworks for their assessment. We argue that transportability cannot transition from academic exercise to a decision-making tool without explicit early dialogue between stakeholders, transparent reporting standards, and capacity building within HTA bodies. We present actionable recommendations to build HTA expertise, create a case study repository, and define contexts where transported RWE demonstrably impacts patient access. As evidence dossiers increasingly rely on nonlocal data, addressing these strategic and operational gaps becomes essential to help patients.
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.