Brief · Use case · Market Access
Prescription DTx Evidence Review.
LiveEvidence ReviewReview the published evidence on whether a prescription digital therapeutic improves clinical outcomes, rated for strength outcome by outcome.
Prescription DTx Evidence Review is a ready-made use case for Market Access. It ships under the Evidence Review template.
For market access and HEOR leads. You get the question stated as a PICO, the main studies tabulated with effect and risk of bias, the certainty rated per outcome and what the evidence does not answer. Studies are cited or marked as gaps.
Add it to your library to reuse from New → From template. Edit the saved copy in your library on the service form.
The decision
What does the published evidence show on whether prescription digital therapeutics improve clinical outcomes in one named chronic condition, for a market access lead preparing a payer discussion?
What is reviewed
The condition is named by the reader. The review fixes the PICO first and then looks for randomized trials, with cohort studies as a second tier. It checks first whether a systematic review already exists.
| Evidence | What it holds | What the review does with it |
|---|---|---|
| Existing systematic reviews | Reviews that already pooled the trials, to use as a starting point and a cross-check. Their quality is read with a tool for reviews and not taken on trust.1 | Searches of PubMed and the trial registries. |
| Randomized trials | Trials of the software against usual care or a sham control, with the outcome the payer cares about.2 | Rated with RoB 2. |
| Non-randomized studies | Cohorts and real-world studies, which add scale and duration but carry more bias.3 | Rated with ROBINS-I. |
What the review does
Software trials have their own bias. Participants usually know they have the software, and adherence and engagement are measured in different ways. The review treats unblinded outcomes and attrition as reasons to lower certainty, and says so.1,5
Evidence tiers match function and risk. The NICE framework expects more evidence of benefit from software that treats or diagnoses than from software that informs. The review notes the tier of the product class it covers.5
What a payer will ask. The review ends with what the evidence does not settle for a payer discussion, such as durability, subgroups and comparison with active treatment.
Recommended length
Standard
The question is narrow and the studies are few enough to tabulate. Standard carries the PICO, the studies, the effect, the certainty and the open question in about 1,300 words.
You can pick another length on the form. The other two stay available.
Assumptions the review checks
The review states the assumptions its question and its rating rest on, and says what each gap limits. Examples for this question:
- The named condition has randomized trials of prescription software.
- The outcome in the trials is the one the payer will weigh.
- The trials used the product class the lead has in mind.
Standards, guidance and sources
Methods
The decision practice behind the memo itself is on the template page.
What gets flagged
Any study without a reported interval, any outcome measured differently across studies, and any finding that rests on one trial.
What arrives
- The question and the bottom line
- How the evidence was found
- The evidence
- What it shows
- How strong it is
- Where studies disagree
- Where the evidence is thin
- What the evidence does not answer
What it will not do
It is a rapid review, not a systematic one. It reports the effects the studies reported, does not pool them into a new estimate, and labels every certainty rating as analyst judgment.
It does not model cost or value. A Decision Memo or an Assessment does that.
It is not a systematic review. It uses a bounded search, says so, and recommends a full literature review when completeness matters.
It does not pool studies into a new estimate. It reports the effects the studies reported.
It does not compute a missing interval or plot a missing effect as zero. Both are marked as gaps.
References
- [1] Schünemann, H. J. et al. Chapter 14: Completing ‘Summary of findings’ tables and grading the certainty of the evidence. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Read on 8 October 2026.
- [2] Sterne, J. A. C. et al. RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ, 2019;366:l4898. Not read.
- [3] Sterne, J. A. C. et al. ROBINS-I. BMJ, 2016;355:i4919. Not read.
- [5] National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Evidence standards framework (ESF) for digital health technologies. Not read in full.
Links checked 9 October 2026
These are the sources the template drew on. None of their authors or issuers has reviewed it.
About the Brief service
A Brief is a written answer from one specialist, at the depth you asked for. It arrives with its sources, and it closes by saying plainly what would change the conclusion. Nothing is hidden behind a summary, and anything the expert could not source is marked as a gap rather than filled in.
To edit a saved template, open New → Brief → From template, or the library rail on the service form.