名字裡有什麼？重溫醫療科技評估報告定義的基石

為了準備由 INAHTA 主辦的線上研討會（主題：超越「完整醫療科技評估報告」），重新複習了醫療科技評估領域中非常經典的一篇文獻：Merlin et al. (2014) 發表的《What’s in a Name?》。這篇文獻對於理解全球醫療科技評估報告的標準化至關重要。

十多年前的痛點：定義的混亂

在十多年前，全球醫療科技評估機構在面臨決策時間與資源壓力時，發展出了各種精簡版的評估報告。但當時最大的痛點是「定義極度混亂」：你說的「快速審查」跟我以為的「迷你醫療科技評估」可能是兩回事！再者，如果無法反映報告的真實嚴謹度，導致決策者容易產生誤解。

為此，INAHTA 凝聚了全球共識，明確界定了在「速度」與「科學嚴謹度」取捨下的三大產出標準。

INAHTA 的三大標準：速度與嚴謹的平衡

1. 完整醫療科技評估報告（Full HTA Report）

最完整的黃金標準。必須包含全面的系統性文獻回顧、嚴格的證據品質評估、經濟模型與廣泛的組織及社會考量。

2. 迷你醫療科技評估（Mini-HTA）

範圍縮小，但「嚴謹度不減」。必須包含系統性文獻回顧、證據品質把關，並且必須提供成本與預算衝擊資訊。

3. 快速審查（Rapid Review）

為了搶時間，允許研究方法學的「捷徑」。通常縮減文獻檢索範圍，且證據品質評估與成本資訊皆為「非必要」。

防誤用的視覺防護網

這套定義與隨後推出的 INAHTA 產品類型標章（IPT Marks），為全球醫療科技評估報告建立了一套「防誤用」的視覺防護網，讓決策者一眼就能看懂他們手中的證據效力。

現實與理論的落差

但十餘年過去了，我們真的照著做嗎？根據近期的實證分析（如 McLaughlin 等人 2026 年的研究），當今許多號稱「迷你醫療科技評估」或「快速審查」的報告，高達近四成僅使用一般文獻檢索，且近九成省略了預算評估卻未給出理由。這意味著「理論定義」與「現實妥協」之間出現了差距。

核心議題：如何維護決策品質

我們是否該重新定義迷你醫療科技評估？還是該嚴格要求機構在報告中透明地交代「抄了哪些捷徑」以保護決策品質？

這會是今晚 INAHTA 線上研討會要探討的核心議題！非常期待與來自愛爾蘭、澳洲、菲律賓、烏拉圭等地的專家們深入交流。

您所屬的機構在處理急迫性評估時，又是如何拿捏這條界線的呢？歡迎在底下留言交流！

相關標籤： #醫療科技評估 #INAHTA #實證醫學 #迷你醫療科技評估 #快速審查 #醫療政策 #決策科學

參考文獻：

Merlin, T., et al. (2014). What’s in a Name? Developing Definitions for Common Health Technology Assessment Product Types of the International Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment (INAHTA). International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/international-journal-of-technology-assessment-in-health-care/article/whats-in-a-name-developing-definitions-for-common-health-technology-assessment-product-types-of-the-international-network-of-agencies-for-health-technology-assessment-inahta/9525F3145C0A60F897BA50BAD47E3389#metrics

English version below

What’s in a Name? Revisiting the Foundations of HTA Report Definitions

In preparation for an online seminar hosted by INAHTA (topic: Beyond the ‘Full HTA Report’), I revisited a classic piece of literature in the field of health technology assessment: ‘What’s in a Name?’ published by Merlin et al. (2014). This paper is essential for understanding the standardization of HTA reports globally.

The Pain Point of a Decade Ago: Definition Chaos

More than a decade ago, as global HTA agencies faced pressure on decision-making timelines and resources, they developed various abbreviated assessment reports. However, the biggest pain point at that time was ‘extreme definitional confusion’: the ‘Rapid Review’ you mentioned might mean something completely different from what I understand as ‘Mini-HTA’! Furthermore, when reports failed to reflect their true rigor level, decision makers were easily misled.

To address this, INAHTA brought global consensus together and clearly defined three major output standards under the tradeoff between ‘speed’ and ‘scientific rigor’.

INAHTA’s Three Standards: Balancing Speed and Rigor

1. Full HTA Report

The most comprehensive gold standard. Must include comprehensive systematic review, strict evidence quality assessment, economic modeling, and broad organizational and societal considerations.

2. Mini-HTA

Narrower in scope, but ‘rigor unchanged’. Must include systematic review, evidence quality assurance, and must provide cost and budget impact information.

3. Rapid Review

To save time, methodological ‘shortcuts’ are permitted. Usually reduces the scope of literature search, and evidence quality assessment and cost information are both ‘optional’.

A Visual Safeguard Against Misuse

These definitions, along with the subsequently launched INAHTA Product Type Marks (IPT Marks), established a ‘safeguard against misuse’ visual protection network for global HTA reports, allowing decision makers to understand the strength of evidence in their hands at a glance.

The Gap Between Theory and Reality

But more than a decade later, are we actually following these standards? According to recent empirical analysis (such as the 2026 research by McLaughlin et al.), today many reports claiming to be ‘Mini-HTA’ or ‘Rapid Review’ use only general literature searches in nearly 40% of cases, and nearly 90% omit budget assessments without providing reasons. This means a gap has emerged between ‘theoretical definition’ and ‘practical compromise’.

Core Issue: Protecting Decision Quality

Should we redefine Mini-HTA? Or should we strictly require institutions to transparently disclose which ‘shortcuts’ they took in their reports to protect decision quality?

This will be a core topic at tonight’s INAHTA webinar! I’m looking forward to in-depth exchanges with experts from Ireland, Australia, the Philippines, Uruguay, and other regions.

How does your institution balance this line when handling urgent assessments? Please share your thoughts in the comments!

Related Tags: #HealthTechnologyAssessment #INAHTA #EvidenceBasedMedicine #MiniHTA #RapidReview #HealthPolicy #DecisionMaking

Reference:

Merlin, T., et al. (2014). What’s in a Name? Developing Definitions for Common Health Technology Assessment Product Types of the International Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment (INAHTA). International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/international-journal-of-technology-assessment-in-health-care/article/whats-in-a-name-developing-definitions-for-common-health-technology-assessment-product-types-of-the-international-network-of-agencies-for-health-technology-assessment-inahta/9525F3145C0A60F897BA50BAD47E3389#metrics