<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE root>
<article xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xmlns:ali="http://www.niso.org/schemas/ali/1.0/" article-type="review-article" dtd-version="1.2" xml:lang="en"><front><journal-meta><journal-id journal-id-type="publisher-id">Health Сare of the Russian Federation</journal-id><journal-title-group><journal-title xml:lang="en">Health Сare of the Russian Federation</journal-title><trans-title-group xml:lang="ru"><trans-title>Здравоохранение Российской Федерации</trans-title></trans-title-group></journal-title-group><issn publication-format="print">0044-197X</issn><issn publication-format="electronic">2412-0723</issn><publisher><publisher-name xml:lang="en">Federal Scientific Center for Hygiene F.F.Erisman</publisher-name></publisher></journal-meta><article-meta><article-id pub-id-type="publisher-id">704543</article-id><article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.47470/0044-197X-2025-69-5-423-428</article-id><article-id pub-id-type="edn">hluolm</article-id><article-categories><subj-group subj-group-type="toc-heading" xml:lang="en"><subject>HEALTH CARE ORGANIZATION</subject></subj-group><subj-group subj-group-type="toc-heading" xml:lang="ru"><subject>ОРГАНИЗАЦИЯ ЗДРАВООХРАНЕНИЯ</subject></subj-group><subj-group subj-group-type="article-type"><subject>Review Article</subject></subj-group></article-categories><title-group><article-title xml:lang="en">Vectors shaping the contemporary landscape of health technology assessment: fundamental approaches and the potential of digital solutions (literature review)</article-title><trans-title-group xml:lang="ru"><trans-title>Векторы формирования современного ландшафта оценки технологий здравоохранения: фундаментальные подходы и потенциал цифровых решений (обзор литературы)</trans-title></trans-title-group></title-group><contrib-group><contrib contrib-type="author"><contrib-id contrib-id-type="orcid">https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0745-9474</contrib-id><name-alternatives><name xml:lang="en"><surname>Andreev</surname><given-names>Dmitry A.</given-names></name><name xml:lang="ru"><surname>Андреев</surname><given-names>Дмитрий Анатольевич</given-names></name></name-alternatives><email>AndreevDA@zdrav.mos.ru</email><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"/></contrib></contrib-group><aff-alternatives id="aff1"><aff><institution xml:lang="en">Research Institute for Healthcare Organization and Medical Management of Moscow Health Department</institution></aff><aff><institution xml:lang="ru">ГБУ города Москвы «Научно-исследовательский институт организации здравоохранения и медицинского менеджмента Департамента здравоохранения города Москвы»</institution></aff></aff-alternatives><pub-date date-type="pub" iso-8601-date="2025-10-31" publication-format="electronic"><day>31</day><month>10</month><year>2025</year></pub-date><volume>69</volume><issue>5</issue><issue-title xml:lang="en">VOL 69, NO5 (2025)</issue-title><issue-title xml:lang="ru">ТОМ 69, №5 (2025)</issue-title><fpage>423</fpage><lpage>428</lpage><history><date date-type="received" iso-8601-date="2026-03-18"><day>18</day><month>03</month><year>2026</year></date></history><permissions><copyright-year>2025</copyright-year></permissions><self-uri xlink:href="https://journals.eco-vector.com/0044-197X/article/view/704543">https://journals.eco-vector.com/0044-197X/article/view/704543</self-uri><abstract xml:lang="en"><p>Introduction. The role of classical methods in assessing the growing number of health technologies remains significant. At the same time, these methods are increasingly implemented by means of specialized, high‑performance hardware‑software platforms.Purpose. To identify the fundamental approaches to conducting health technology assessment (HTA) that either retain or gain particular importance in the era of digitalization.This article was prepared in accordance with the SANRA guidelines for narrative reviews. An information search using relevant keywords was conducted in the PubMed/Medline databases and within the Google ecosystem. Priority was given to the most recent and relevant reports from the past 2–3 years.Cost‑effectiveness and cost‑utility analyses remain widely applied methods of comprehensive assessment. The platforms Trialstreamer and RobotReviewer, designed for analytical extraction of clinical trial data, are reviewed. Core modeling tools are identified: (1) highly‑specific — TreeAge Pro; (2) generic — MS Excel and other spreadsheet applications; (3) statistical — R, Stata, SAS, WinBUGS. Web‑based applications for interactive modeling, such as R Shiny‑based systems and the ICER Interactive Modeler — provide access to a range of health economics models. These tools enable users to modify input variables and visualize the impact of such changes on outcomes in real time. Packages such as R Markdown can facilitate the automation of final report generation and updating.Additionally, there are provided examples of artificial intelligence (AI) integration into the routine practice of HTA agencies. It is emphasized that, due to the insufficient exploration of AI’s potential, risks, and limitations, there is an urgent need to develop effective mechanisms for oversight and governance of its use.The limitations of current HTA models are largely associated with the scarcity of refined and context‑appropriate input variables. Human oversight and the involvement of subject‑matter experts remain critically important for ensuring the quality of HTA when implementing AI‑based systems in sensitive areas such as healthcare. Funding. This article was prepared by the author as part of the research project “Development of methodological approaches to value-based healthcare (VBHC) in the city of Moscow” (USISR No.: 123032100062-6).Conflict of interest. The author declares the absence of obvious and potential conflicts of interest in connection with the publication of this article.Received: March 21, 2025 / Accepted: June 24, 2025 / Published: October 31, 202</p></abstract><trans-abstract xml:lang="ru"><p>Введение. Роль классических методов оценки растущего числа технологий здравоохранения не ослабевает. Вместе с тем они всё чаще реализуются с помощью специализированных высокопроизводительных комплексов.Цель — выявить базовые подходы к проведению оценки технологий здравоохранения (ОТЗ), сохраняющие либо приобретающие особую значимость в эпоху цифровизации.Статья подготовлена в соответствии с руководством SANRA для нарративных обзоров. Информационный поиск с использованием ключевых слов проводился в базах PubMed/Medline, а также в экосистеме Google. Основное внимание уделялось наиболее актуальным и релевантным публикациям за последние 2–3 года.Анализы «затраты–эффективность» и «затраты–полезность» остаются распространёнными методами комплексной оценки. Рассмотрены платформы Trialstreamer и RobotReviewer, разрабатываемые с целью аналитической экстракции информации о клинических исследованиях. Определены базовые пакеты для моделирования: 1) специфичный — TreeAge Pro; 2) генерические — MS Excel и другие средства для работы с электронными таблицами; 3) статистические — R, Stata, SAS, WinBUGS. Такие веб-приложения для интерактивного моделирования, как системы на базе R Shiny и ICER Interactive Modeler, обеспечивают доступ к широкому спектру моделей в области экономики здравоохранения. Они позволяют пользователям изменять «входящие» переменные в модели и визуализировать влияние изменений на результирующие выводы в «реальном времени». Пакеты, подобные R Markdown, могут обеспечить автоматизацию формирования и обновления финальных отчётов. Приводятся примеры интеграции искусственного интеллекта (ИИ) в повседневную практику агентств по ОТЗ. Подчёркивается, что из‑за недостаточной изученности спектра потенциала, рисков и ограничений ИИ возникает острая необходимость в разработке эффективных средств контроля и надзора за его деятельностью.Недостатки текущих моделей ОТЗ во многом сопряжены с нехваткой рафинированных (подходящих) «входных» переменных и/или медицинской информации. Человеческий контроль и участие профильных экспертов остаются критически важными для обеспечения качества ОТЗ при внедрении ИИ‑систем в чувствительные сферы здравоохранения.Финансирование. Данная статья подготовлена автором в рамках НИР «Разработка методологических подходов ценностно-ориентированного здравоохранения (ЦОЗ) в городе Москве» (№ по ЕГИСУ: № 123032100062-6).Конфликт интересов. Автор декларирует отсутствие явных и потенциальных конфликтов интересов в связи с публикацией данной статьи.Поступила: 21.03.2025 / Принята к печати: 24.06.2025 / Опубликована: 31.10.2025</p></trans-abstract><kwd-group xml:lang="en"><kwd>health technology assessment</kwd><kwd>methods</kwd><kwd>automation</kwd><kwd>computerization</kwd><kwd>digitalization</kwd><kwd>information technologies</kwd><kwd>modeling</kwd><kwd>artificial intelligence</kwd><kwd>review</kwd></kwd-group><kwd-group xml:lang="ru"><kwd>оценка технологий здравоохранения</kwd><kwd>методы</kwd><kwd>автоматизация</kwd><kwd>компьютеризация</kwd><kwd>цифровизация</kwd><kwd>информационные технологии</kwd><kwd>моделирование</kwd><kwd>искусственный интеллект</kwd><kwd>обзор</kwd></kwd-group></article-meta></front><body></body><back><ref-list><ref id="B1"><label>1.</label><mixed-citation>Espinosa O., Drummond M., Russo E., Williams D., Wix D. How can actuarial science contribute to the field of health technology assessment? An interdisciplinary perspective. Int. J. Technol. Assess Health Care 2025; 41(1): e3. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0266462324004781</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B2"><label>2.</label><mixed-citation>WHO. Health technology assessment 2025. Available at: https://who.int/health-topics/health-technology-assessment</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B3"><label>3.</label><mixed-citation>Sharma M., Teerawattananon Y., Dabak S.V., Isaranuwatchai W., Pearce F., Pilasant S., et al. A landscape analysis of health technology assessment capacity in the Association of South-East Asian Nations region. Health Res. Policy Syst 2021; 19(1): 19. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-020-00647-0</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B4"><label>4.</label><mixed-citation>Nemzoff C., Shah H.A., Heupink L.F., Regan L., Ghosh S., Pincombe M., et al. Adaptive health technology assessment: a scoping review of methods. Value Heal. 2023; 26(10): 1549–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2023.05.017</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B5"><label>5.</label><mixed-citation>Fleurence R.L., Bian J., Wang X., Xu H., Dawoud D., Higashi M., et al. Generative artificial intelligence for health technology assessment: opportunities, challenges, and policy considerations: an ISPOR Working Group Report. Value Heal. 2025; 28(2): 175–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2024.10.3846</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B6"><label>6.</label><mixed-citation>Новодережкина Е.А., Зырянов С.К. Значение исследований реальной клинической практики в оценке технологий здравоохранения. ФАРМАКОЭКОНОМИКА. Современная фармакоэкономика и фармакоэпидемиология. 2022; 15(3): 380–9. https://doi.org/10.17749/2070-4909/farmakoekonomika.2022.120 https://elibrary.ru/ufeagn</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B7"><label>7.</label><mixed-citation>Farah L., Borget I., Martelli N., Vallee A. Suitability of the current health technology assessment of innovative artificial intelligence-based medical devices: scoping literature review. J. Med. Internet Res. 2024; 26: e51514. https://doi.org/10.2196/51514</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B8"><label>8.</label><mixed-citation>Holtorf A.P., Bertelsen N., Jarke H., Dutarte M., Scalabrini S., Strammiello V. Stakeholder perspectives on the current status and potential barriers of patient involvement in health technology assessment (HTA) across Europe. Int. J. Technol. Assess. Health Care. 2024; 40(1): e81. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0266462324004707</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B9"><label>9.</label><mixed-citation>Bidonde J., Lauvrak V., Ananthakrishnan A., Kingkaew P., Peacocke E.F. Topic identification, selection, and prioritization for health technology assessment in selected countries: a mixed study design. Cost Eff. Resour. Alloc. 2024; 22(1): 12. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12962-024-00513-8</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B10"><label>10.</label><mixed-citation>Ягудина Р.И., Серпик В.Г. Методологические основы фармакоэкономического моделирования. Фармакоэкономика: теория и практика. 2016; 4(1): 7–12. https://elibrary.ru/vsfgxv</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B11"><label>11.</label><mixed-citation>Zia A., Aziz M., Popa I., Khan S.A., Hamedani A.F., Asif A.R. Artificial intelligence-based medical data mining. J. Pers. Med. 2022; 12(9): 1359. https://doi.org/10.3390/jpm12091359</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B12"><label>12.</label><mixed-citation>Ramprasad S., Marshall I.J., McInerney D.J., Wallace B.C. Automatically summarizing evidence from clinical trials: a prototype highlighting current challenges. Proc. Conf. Assoc. Comput. Linguist. Meet. 2023; 2023: 236–47.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B13"><label>13.</label><mixed-citation>Muller A.E., Rose C.J., Ames H.M., Echavez J.F.M., van de Velde S.R.P. Is Robot Reviewer, a semiautomated risk of bias tool, acceptable to researchers? In: Information Retrieval Meeting (IRM 2022). Cologne: German Medical Science GMS Publishing House; 2022.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B14"><label>14.</label><mixed-citation>Tian Y., Yang X., Doi S.A., Furuya-Kanamori L., Lin L., Kwong J.S.W., et al. Towards the automatic risk of bias assessment on randomized controlled trials: A comparison of RobotReviewer and humans. Res. Synth. Methods. 2024; 15(6): 1111–9. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1761</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B15"><label>15.</label><mixed-citation>Khraisha Q., Put S., Kappenberg J., Warraitch A., Hadfield K. Can large language models replace humans in systematic reviews? Evaluating GPT-4’s efficacy in screening and extracting data from peer-reviewed and grey literature in multiple languages. Res. Synth. Methods. 2024; 15(4): 616–26. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1715</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B16"><label>16.</label><mixed-citation>Протощак В.В., Русев И.Т., Тегза В.Ю., Паронников М.В., Орлов Д.Н., Ковалишин И.М. Клинико-экономический анализ в урологии. Вестник Российской Военно-медицинской академии. 2019; (4): 166–71. https://elibrary.ru/dnrkjh</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B17"><label>17.</label><mixed-citation>Michelly Gonçalves Brandão S., Brunner-La Rocca H.P., Pedroso de Lima A.C., Alcides Bocchi E. A review of cost-effectiveness analysis: From theory to clinical practice. Medicine (Baltimore). 2023; 102(42): e35614. https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000035614</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B18"><label>18.</label><mixed-citation>Федоренко А.С., Воробьева Н.А., Бурбелло А.Т. Основы и методология клинико-экономического анализа. Архангельск; 2024.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B19"><label>19.</label><mixed-citation>National Institute for Health and Care Research. Wolstenholme J. Decision analytic modelling for economic evaluation of new diagnostic tests n.d. Available at: https://nihr.ac.uk/</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B20"><label>20.</label><mixed-citation>Tosh J., Wailoo A. Review of Software for Decision Modelling. London: National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE); 2008.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B21"><label>21.</label><mixed-citation>Naylor N.R., Williams J., Green N., Lamrock F., Briggs A. Extensions of health economic evaluations in R for microsoft excel users: a tutorial for incorporating heterogeneity and conducting value of information analyses. Pharmacoeconomics. 2023; 41(1): 21–32. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-022-01203-0</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B22"><label>22.</label><mixed-citation>Thokala P., Srivastava T., Smith R., Ren S., Whittington M.D., Elvidge J., et al. Living health technology assessment: issues, challenges and opportunities. Pharmacoeconomics. 2023; 41(3): 227–37. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-022-01229-4</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B23"><label>23.</label><mixed-citation>Incerti D., Thom H., Baio G., Jansen J.P. R you still using excel? The advantages of modern software tools for health technology assessment. Value Heal. 2019; 22(5): 575–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2019.01.003</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B24"><label>24.</label><mixed-citation>Hollman C., Paulden M., Pechlivanoglou P., McCabe C. A comparison of four software programs for implementing decision analytic cost-effectiveness models. Pharmacoeconomics. 2017; 35(8): 817–30. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-017-0510-8</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B25"><label>25.</label><mixed-citation>Northwestern University. Geller A. Comparing Python Interactives to R Shiny; 2022. Available at: https://sites.northwestern.edu/researchcomputing/2022/03/30/comparing-python-interactives-to-r-shiny/</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B26"><label>26.</label><mixed-citation>Zemplényi A., Tachkov K., Balkanyi L., Németh B., Petykó Z.I., Petrova G., et al. Recommendations to overcome barriers to the use of artificial intelligence-driven evidence in health technology assessment. Front. Public Heal. 2023; 11: 1088121. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2023.1088121</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B27"><label>27.</label><mixed-citation>Szawara P., Zlateva J., Kotseva F., Stoyaniov P., Guerra I., Halmos T., et al. HTA364 can artificial intelligence and machine learning be used to demonstrate the value of a technology for HTA decision-making? Value Heal. 2023; 26: S390. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2023.09.2047</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B28"><label>28.</label><mixed-citation>McEwan P., Bøg M., Faurby M., Foos V., Lingvay I., Lübker C., et al. Cost-effectiveness of semaglutide in people with obesity and cardiovascular disease without diabetes. J. Med. Econ. 2025; 28(1): 268–78. https://doi.org/10.1080/13696998.2025.2459529</mixed-citation></ref></ref-list></back></article>
