EUR-ASSESS project subgroup report on methodology: Methodological guidance for the conduct of health technology assessment

International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care

Volumn 13, Issue 2, 1997, Pages 186-219

  Liberati, Alessandro ^a   Sheldon, Trevor A ^b   Banta, H David ^c  

^a MARIO NEGRI INSTITUTE FOR PHARMACOLOGICAL RESEARCH   (Italy)

^b UNIVERSITY OF YORK   (United Kingdom)

^c TNO   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BIOMEDICAL TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; ETHICS; EXPERT SYSTEM; HEALTH CARE POLICY; HEALTH CARE QUALITY; MATHEMATICAL MODEL; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; QUALITY CONTROL; REVIEW; SAFETY; SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY;

EID: 0030922705     PISSN: 02664623     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S0266462300010369     Document Type: Review

References (14)

1. Australia Commonwealth Department of Health, Housing and Community Services. Guidelines for the pharmaceutical industry on preparation of submissions to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee. Canberra: Commonwealth Department, 1992.
2. Bailey, K. R. Generalizing the results of randomized clinical trials. Controlled Clinical Trials, 1994, 15, 15-23.
3. Balkany, T. H. A brief perspective on cochlear implants. New England Journal of Medicine, 1993, 328, 281-82.
4. Banta, H. D. Health care technology as a policy issue. Health Policy, 1994, 30, 1-21.
5. Bradley, C. Evaluating new technologies: Psychological issues in research design and measurement. In C. Bradley, P. Home, & M. Christie (eds.), The technology of diabetes care. Harwood Academic Publications, 1991.
6. Bradley, C., Home, P., & Christie, M. (eds.). The technology of diabetes care. Harwood Academic Publications, 1991.
7. Briggs, A., & Schulpher, M. Sensitivity analysis in economic studies: A review of published studies. Health Economics, 1995, 4, 355-71.
8. Brook, R. H., Chassin, M. R., Fink, A., et al. A method for the detailed assessment of the appropriateness of medical technologies. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 1986, 2, 53-63.
9. Canadian Coordinating Office for Health Technology Assessment (CCOHTA). Guidelines for economic evaluation of pharmaceuticals: Canada. Ottawa: CCOHTA, 1994.
10. The Canadian Task Force on the Periodic Health Examination. The Canadian guide to clinical preventive health care medicine. Ottawa: Canada Communication Group, 1994.
11. Cohen, N. L. The ethics of cochlear implants in young children. American Journal of Otology, 1994, 15, 1-2.
12. Cook, D. J., Sackett, D. L., & Spitzer, W. O. Methodologic guidelines for systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials in health care from the Potsdam consultation on meta-analysis. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 1995, 48, 167-71.
13. Dalkey, N. C. The Delphi method: Experimental study of group opinion. Santa Monica: RAND Corporation, RM-5888-PR, June 1969.
14. Davey Smith, G., & Egger, M. Who benefits from medical interventions? British Medical Journal, 1994, 308, 72-74.