Skip to main content


  • Oriana Ciani (a1), Britni Wilcher (a2), Carl Rudolf Blankart (a3), Maximilian Hatz (a3), Valentina Prevolnik Rupel (a4), Renata Slabe Erker (a4), Yauheniya Varabyova (a3) and Rod S. Taylor (a5)...

Objectives: The aim of this study was to review and compare current health technology assessment (HTA) activities for medical devices across non-European Union HTA agencies.

Methods: HTA activities for medical devices were evaluated from three perspectives: organizational structure, processes, and methods. Agencies were primarily selected upon membership of existing HTA networks. The data collection was performed in two stages: stage 1–agency Web-site assessment using a standardized questionnaire, followed by review and validation of the collected data by a representative of the agency; and stage 2–semi-structured telephone interviews with key informants of a sub-sample of agencies.

Results: In total, thirty-six HTA agencies across twenty non-EU countries assessing medical devices were included. Twenty-seven of thirty-six (75 percent) agencies were judged at stage 1 to have adopted HTA-specific approaches for medical devices (MD-specific agencies) that were largely organizational or procedural. There appeared to be few differences in the organization, process and methods between MD-specific and non–MD-specific agencies. Although the majority (69 percent) of both categories of agency had specific methods guidance or policy for evidence submission, only one MD-specific agency had developed methodological guidelines specific to medical devices. In stage 2, many MD-specific agencies cited insufficient resources (budget, skilled employees), lack of coordination (between regulator and reimbursement bodies), and the inability to generalize findings from evidence synthesis to be key challenges in the HTA of medical devices.

Conclusions: The lack of evidence for differentiation in scientific methods for HTA of devices raises the question of whether HTA needs to develop new methods for medical devices but rather adapt existing methodological approaches. In contrast, organizational and/or procedural adaptation of existing HTA agency frameworks to accommodate medical devices appear relatively commonplace.

  • View HTML
    • Send article to Kindle

      To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

      Note you can select to send to either the or variations. ‘’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

      Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

      Available formats
      Send article to Dropbox

      To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

      Available formats
      Send article to Google Drive

      To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

      Available formats
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (, which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Hide All
1. Banta D. What is technology assessment? Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2009;25:79.
2. Perry S, Gardner E, Thamer MW. The status of health technology assessment worldwide. Results of an international survey. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 1997;13:8198.
3. Oortwijn W, Broos P, Vondeling H, et al. Mapping of health technology assessment in selected countries. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2013;29:424434.
4. Oortwijn W, Mathijssen J, Banta D. The role of health technology assessment on pharmaceutical reimbursement in selected middle-income countries. Health Policy. 2010;95:7484.
5. Stephens JM, Handke B, Doshi JA, et al. International survey of methods used in health technology assessment (HTA): Does practice meet the principles proposed for good research? J Comp Eff Res. 2012;2:2944.
6. EUnetHTA. Survey report on HTA organisations. 2008. (accessed March 4, 2015).
7. Franken M, le Polain M, Cleemput I, et al. Similarities and differences between five European drug reimbursement systems. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2012;28:349357.
8. Wilsdon T, Serota A. A comparative analysis of the role and impact of Health Technology Assessment. London: Charles River Associates; 2011. (accessed March 4, 2015).
9. Drummond M, Griffin A, Tarricone R. Economic evaluation for devices and drug - same or different? Value Health. 2009;12:402404.
10. Taylor RS, Iglesias CP. Assessing the clinical and cost-effectiveness of medical devices and drugs: Are they that different? Value Health. 2009;12:404406.
11. Kirisits A, Redekop WK. The economic evaluation of medical devices: Challenges ahead. App Health Econ Health Policy. 2013;11:1526.
12. World Health Organisation. Institutionalisation of Health Technology Assessment. WHO Regional Office for Europe; 2001. (accessed March 4, 2015).
13. Kristensen F. EUnetHTA and health policy-making in Europe. EuroHealth. 2006;12:3638.
14. Drummond MF, Schwartz JS, Jonsson B, et al. Key principles for the improved conduct of health technology assessments for resource allocation decisions. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2008;24:244258.
15. Rogowski WH, Hartz SC, John JH. Clearing up the hazy road from bench to bedside: A framework for integrating the fourth hurdle into translational medicine. BMC Health Serv Res. 2008;8:194.
16. Taylor RS, Drummond MF, Salkeld G, et al. Inclusion of cost effectiveness in licensing requirements of new drugs: The fourth hurdle. BMJ. 2004;329:972975.
17. ISPOR HTA in Reimbursement Working Group. Survey to assess current methods used globally in health technology assessment and health care reimbursement. 2013. (accessed March 4, 2015).
18. Department of Essential Health Technologies. Health technology assessment of medical devices. WHO Medical device technical series. Geneva World Health Organisation, 2011. (accessed March 4, 2015).
19. Siegal K, Schrimasha W. Coping with negative emotions: The cognitive strategies of HIV-infected Gay/Bisexual men. J Health Psychol. 2000;5:517530.
20. Ministry of Health of Brazil. Methodological guidelines for appraisals on health technologies assessment for the Ministry of Health of Brazil. 2014. (accessed March 4, 2015).
21. Australian Department of Health and Ageing. Review of health technology assessment in Australia. 2011. (accessed March 4, 2015).
22. MaRS. What is MaRS EXCITE? (accessed March 4, 2015).
23. A study of renal denervation in patients with treatment resistant hypertension (PaCE). 2013. (accessed March 4, 2015).
24. Levin L. Medical devices: Are different HTA approaches really needed? The Ontario Experience. HTAi 11th Annual Meeting. Washington DC; 2014. (accessed March 4, 2015).
25. Tarricone R, Torbica A, Ferré F, Drummond M. Generating appropriate clinical data for value assessment of medical devices: What role does regulation play? Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2014;14:707718.
26. Craig P, Dieppe P, Macintyre S, et al. Developing and evaluating complex interventions: The new Medical Research Council guidance. BMJ. 2008;337:a1655.
27. Stroup DF, Berlin JA, Morton SC, et al. Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: A proposal for reporting. Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) group. JAMA. 2000;283:20082012.
28. Turner RM, Spiegelhalter DJ, Smith GC, Thompson SG. Bias modelling in evidence synthesis. J R Stat Soc Ser A Stat Soc. 2009;172:2147.
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care
  • ISSN: 0266-4623
  • EISSN: 1471-6348
  • URL: /core/journals/international-journal-of-technology-assessment-in-health-care
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *


Type Description Title
Supplementary Materials

Ciani supplementary material
Figure S1-S2 and Table S1

 Word (124 KB)
124 KB


Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 17
Total number of PDF views: 329 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 531 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 18th November 2017. This data will be updated every 24 hours.