Author, date, location | Programme/speciality | Reason for exclusion |
---|---|---|
Alberta Heritage Fund for Medical Research, 2003 [80]; Alberta, Canada | Alberta Heritage Fund for Medical Research HTA programme | The number of projects in which any impact (only on policy) was identified was described as ‘most’, which could not be included in the statistical analysis (NB: this is a different study than the one with the same author and same year that was included in the analysis as reference [33]) |
Aymerich et al., 2012 [81], Spain | Network centre for research in epidemiology and public health | Data for impact on reviews and on guidelines/other policies was combined making it impossible to identify the specific policy impact that would have been made by the contribution to guidelines, etc.; the healthcare benefits were potential not actual |
Catalan Agency for HTA and Research, 2006 [82], Catalonia, Spain | TV3 telethon for biomedical research in Catalonia: different speciality each year | Most of the data on impacts seemed to be potential impacts, and the data that were available were presented as total instances not the percentage of projects reporting the impact category |
Cohen et al., 2015 [83], Australia | National Health and Medical Research Council: intervention studies in various programmes | While it was a multi-project assessment covering 70 eligible intervention projects, they came from more than one programme and were not the total number of projects from the programmes of which they were part |
NHS Executive Trent, 1997 [84], United Kingdom | Programme of the Trent Region of the NHS: wide range of basic and applied research | The number of projects in which any impact (on policy and on practice) was identified was described just as ‘<10’, and so not included in the statistical analysis |
Shani et al., 2000 [85], Israel | Israeli Ministry of Health’s Medical Technologies Administration/Israeli Center for Technology in Health Care: HTA | The number of projects in which any impact (only on policy) was identified was described just as ‘86–100’, and so not included in the statistical analysis; also the paper was a commentary rather than a research report |
Stryer et al., 2000 [86], United States of America | Agency for Health Care and Research Quality: Outcomes and effectiveness research | The number of projects in which any impact (on policy and on practice) was identified was described as ‘limited’, and so could not be included in the statistical analysis |