EP_Appendix_Ethics in full HTA reports 20240423.pdf

As writers of HTA reports, we were interested in the question who finally reads these reports. After several discussions, we came to the conclusion that we neither know the specific kind nor the number of recipients and are not able to survey them. Moreover, reading leaves no traces and the interests and conclusions of individuals in and from the results remain unknown. To continue, we reformulated our research question and asked: Where, by whom, and for what purpose are published HTA reports cited (qualitative and quantitative analysis)? This question was oriented by studies that did a follow-up of published randomized controlled trials (RCT). In contrast to HTA, study registrations for RCTs are more common, whereby registration numbers exist by which the studies can be identified in a common internet search [see 1, 2]. After thorough piloting, we find that tracking of certain HTA reports is not possible, as there are not sufficiently unique ID codes, and the titles are often not sufficiently specific. The latter leads to an unmanageable number of hits of scientific articles with similar or same questions.