INAHTA Product Type (IPT) Classifications & Marks

Introduction

The Quality Assurance Group of INAHTA has developed definitions for three types of health technology assessments:

  1. HTA report
  2. Mini-HTA
  3. Rapid review

These three product types are commonly produced by INAHTA member agencies.

The definitions were based on three surveys of the membership undertaken between 2010 and 2013.

In order to help with harmonisation of processes and expectations, member agencies are encouraged to review their HTA products and determine which, if any, of their products would meet the criteria of an HTA report, Mini-HTA or Rapid Review.

IPT Marks

Each of these three HTA products has an INAHTA Product Type (IPT) Mark, which is a small graphic, associated with it. It is recommended that this is placed on the front or inside page of the HTA so that anyone reviewing the document can immediately determine its product type.

IPT Marks may be either unverified or verified.

  • Unverified IPT Marks are assigned when the assessment of your agency’s product type classification has only been done internally.  
  • Verified IPT Marks are assigned when the assessment of your agency's product type classification has been done internally and this has then been verified independently (i.e., by another agency).

All IPT Marks, whether unverified or verified are to be assigned following this classification guide:

Download the  Guide to assigning INAHTA IPT marks

 A description of each IPT Classification is provied below.  IPT Marks are available in the Member's Area of the INAHTA website (login required).


1.    An HTA Report will:

  • Always:
    • describe the characteristics and current use of the technology
    • evaluate safety and effectiveness issues
    • determine the cost-effectiveness of the technology eg through economic modelling (when it is appropriate)
    • provide information on costs/financial impact, and
    • discuss organisational considerations
  • Always conduct a comprehensive systematic literature review* or a systematic review of high level evidence
  • Always critically appraise the quality of the evidence base.
  • Optionally address ethical, social and legal considerations.

2.    A Mini-HTA will:

  • Always:
    • describe the characteristics and current use of the technology
    • evaluate safety and effectiveness issues, and
    • provide information on costs/financial impact
  • Always conduct a comprehensive systematic literature review* or a systematic review of high level evidence.
  • Always critically appraise the quality of the evidence base.
  • Optionally address organisational considerations.

3.    A Rapid Review will:

  • Always:
    • describe the characteristics and current use of the technology, and
    • evaluate safety and effectiveness issues
  • Often conduct a review of only high level evidence or of recent evidence and may restrict the literature search to one or two databases.
  • Optionally critically appraise the quality of the evidence base.
  • Optionally provide information on costs/financial impact.

* A systematic review attempts to collate all empirical evidence that fits pre-specified eligibility criteria in order to answer a specific research question. It uses explicit, systematic methods that are selected with a view to minimizing bias, thus providing more reliable findings from which conclusions can be drawn and decisions made (Antman 1992, Oxman 1993).

Many systematic reviews contain meta-analyses. Meta-analysis is the use of statistical methods to summarize the results of independent studies (Glass 1976). A systematic review is a research study and is conducted according to a pre-specified protocol.

Antman EM, Lau J, Kupelnick B, Mosteller F, Chalmers TC. A comparison of results of meta-analyses of randomized control trials and recommendations of clinical experts: Treatments for myocardial infarction. JAMA 1992; 268: 240-248.
Glass GV. Primary, secondary and meta-analysis of research. Educational Researcher 1976; 5: 3-8.
Oxman AD, Guyatt GH. The science of reviewing research. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 1993; 703: 125-133.