'Picking winners': Assessing new health technology

Medical Journal of Australia

Volumn 171, Issue 10, 1999, Pages 557-559

  Anderson, Jeremy N ^a   Fennessy, Paul A ^a   Fennessy, Gabby A ^a   Schattner, Rosa L ^a   Burrows, Elizabeth A ^a  

^a MONASH UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BIOMEDICAL TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE; REVIEW; SAFETY;

EID: 0033571773     PISSN: 0025729X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.5694/j.1326-5377.1999.tb123796.x     Document Type: Review

References (35)

1. McKinlay JB. From "promising report" to "standard procedure": seven stages in the career of a medical innovation. Milbank Q 1981; 59: 374-411.
2. Porter R. The greatest benefit to mankind: a medical history of humanity from antiquity to the present. London: Fontana, 1999.
3. Johanson RB, Menon VJ. Vacuum extraction vs forceps for assisted vaginal delivery (Cochrane review). In: The Cochrane Library, Issue 3, 1999. Oxford: Update Software, 1999.
4. Stephenson PA. International differences in the use of obstetrical interventions. Copenhagen: WHO, 1992. (Document no. EUR/ICP/MCH 112).
5. Relman AS. The new medical-industrial complex. N Engl J Med 1960; 303: 963-970.
6. Swayze VW. Frontal leukotomy and related psychosurgical procedures in the era before antipsychotics (1935-1954): a historical overview. Am J Psychiatr 1995; 152: 505-515.
7. Snider DEJ, Anderson HR, Bentley SE. Current tuberculosis screening practices. Am J Pub Health 1984; 74: 1353-1356.
8. Selley S, Donovan J, Faulkner A, et al. Diagnosis, management and screening of early localised prostate cancer. Health Tech Assess 1997; 1: 1-96
9. Coley CM, Barry MJ, Fleming C, et al. Early detection of prostate cancer. Part II: Estimating the risks, benefits, and costs. American College of Physicians. Ann Intern Med 1997; 126: 468-479.
10. Harper G, Townsend J, Buxton M. The preliminary economic evaluation of health technologies for the prioritization of health technology assessments. A discussion. Int J Tech Assess Health Care 1998; 14: 652-662.
11. Bastian H. Obstetrics and litigation: a consumer perspective. Med J Aust 1990; 153: 340-345.
12. Robert G, Gabbay J, Stevens A. Which are the best information sources for identifying emerging health care technologies? An international Delphi survey. Int J Tech Assess Health Care 1998; 14: 636-643.
13. Jadad A. Randomised controlled trials - a user's guide. London: BMJ Books, 1999.
14. Chalmers I, Altman DG. Systematic reviews. London: BMJ Publications, 1995.
15. Hailey D. Australian economic evaluation and government decisions on pharmaceuticals, compared to assessment of other health technologies. Soc Sci Med 1997; 45: 563-581.
16. Jennett B. High technology medicine: benefits and burdens. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1986.
17. Roberts I, Schierhout G, Alderson P Absence of evidence for the effectiveness of five interventions routinely used in the intensive care management of severe head injury: a systematic review. J Neur Neurosurg Psychiat 1998; 65: 729-733.
18. Hall JC, Mills M, Nguyen H, Hall JL. Methodological standards in surgical trials. Surgery 1996; 119: 466-472.
19. Stirrat GM, Farndon J, Farrows SC, Dwyer N. The challenge of evaluating surgical procedures. Ann R Coll Surg Eng 1992; 74: 80-84.
20. Russell I. Evaluating new surgical procedures: needs collaboration between surgeons and trialists. BMJ 1995; 311: 1243-1244.
21. NIH Consensus conference. Gallstones and laparoscopic cholecystectomy. JAMA 1993; 269: 1018-1024.
22. Shea JA, Healey MJ, Berlin JA, et al. Mortality and complications associated with laparoscopic cholecystectomy. A meta-analysis. Ann Surg 1996; 224: 609-620.
23. Tyagi NS, Meredith MC, Lumb JC, et al. A new minimally invasive technique for cholecystectomy. Subxiphoid "minimal stress triangle": microceliotomy. Ann Surg 1994; 220: 617-625.
24. Majeed AW, Troy G, Nicholl JR et al. Randomised, prospective, single-blind comparison of laparoscopic versus small-incision cholecystectomy. Lancet 1996; 347: 989-994.
25. Stern RS, Nichols KT, Vakeva LH. Malignant melanoma in patients treated for psoriasis with methoxsalen (psoralen) and ultraviolet A radiation (PUVA). The PUVA Follow-Up Study. N Engl J Med 1997; 336: 1041-1045.
26. Perry S, Gardner E, Thamer M. The status of health technology assessment worldwide: results of an international survey. Int J Tech Assess Health Care 1997; 13: 81-98.
27. INAHTA (International Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment). 〈http://www.sbu.se/sbu-site/links/inahta〉
28. Mackey L, Merriel RB, Myers KA. The financial impact of an endoluminal stenting procedure. Aust Health Rev 1998; 21: 130-138.
29. Anderson J, Fennessy PA. What evidence exists about the effectiveness of endoluminal graft procedures for abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAA)? 〈http://www.med.monash.edu.au/publichealth/cce/aaa.pdf〉
30. National Health and Medical Research Council. Clinical practice guidelines: how to make clinical guidelines and how to make them work. 2nd Ed. Canberra, NHMRC, 1998.
31. May J, White GH, Yu W, at al. Concurrent comparison of endoluminal versus open repair in the treatment of abdominal aortic aneurysms: analysis of 300 patients by the life table method. J Vasc Surg 1998; 10: 51-59.
32. Thompson MM, Sayers RD, Bell PR. Endovascular aneurysm repair: proof before publicity. BMJ 1997; 314: 1139-1140.
33. Hovsepian DM. Stent-grafts for endovascular treatment of aortic aneurysms: how much do we really know? Radiology 1996; 198: 14-16.
34. Harris PL, Bluth J, Mialhe C, et al. The need for clinical trials of endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm stent-graft repair: the EUROSTAR Project. European collaborators on stent-graft techniques for abdominal aortic aneurysm repair. J Endovasc Surg 1997; 4: 72-77.
35. Medicare Services Advisory Committee. Endoluminal grafting for abdominal aortic aneurysm: final assessment report. MSAC application 1006. 5-11-99. Canberra: MSAC, 1999.