Comparison of Peer-Reviewed Literature and HTA Systematic Review Processes
| Process | Peer-reviewed literature | HTA systematic review |
| Acknowledgment of authorship, validity of data and conclusions | Required to be signed by all authors before review | Evidence that dissent among clinical experts on panels was often not captured or acknowledged |
| Conflict-of-interest statement | Required and transparent | Literature reviewers often contracted by governments or third-party insurers, leading to potential conflict of interest |
| Cogent and appropriate articulation of research question | Pivotal | Often poorly defined or not explicitly stated |
| Literature review | All relevant prior art should be cited and is assessed by reviewers and readership | Filters placed on what was evaluated |
| Data acquisition | Explicit methodology that allows reproduction is mandated | Reasoning seldom provided for including or excluding primary data |
| Analysis | Established statistical methods | Varied but largely qualitative |
| Conclusions | Patient-focused | Society-focused |
| Responsiveness to criticism | Enshrined in process | Resisted |