In hospitals with standardized processes of health technology assessment (HTA), clinical studies are usually required to support incorporation requests. Factors such as conflicts of interest and confirmation bias affect the quality of the evidence. The objective of this study was to assess the quality of studies submitted to the university hospital to support the incorporation of non-drugs technologies.

All submissions received from 2017 to 2019 were reviewed. Data about methodological quality of studies sent by requesters and their utilization of final recommendation were collected, as well as about studies retrieved during additional search performed by HTA. The Jadad and Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) scales were used for assessing the quality of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and systematic reviews (SRs), respectively.

Twenty-one requests for incorporation of equipment were analyzed. The average number of studies attached was 4.5. In eight requests (53.3%), both SRs and RCTs were attached. In seven (46.7%) only low quality studies were included were included; additional search identified RCTs and SRs in four of these cases. According to the Jadad and AMSTAR scales, 60 percent of the submitted RCTs showed a high risk of bias, while 57 percent of the SRs showed moderate quality, respectively.

The best evidence is not always submitted during the incorporation request process. Requirements for studies of moderate-to-high quality to accept the incorporation demand could be helpful to avoid inefficiencies in hospital-based HTA.