Health Technology Assessment of PET in oncology: Re Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2003; 30:637-641 [2] (multiple letters)

European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging

Volumn 31, Issue 2, 2004, Pages 295-297

  Kristensen, Finn Børlum ^a,b   Adams, Elizabeth ^c   Briones, Eduardo ^d   Coburn, Damian ^e   Facey, Karen ^f   Hansen, Niels Würgler ^b   Hoeksema, Jetty ^g   Mørland, Berit ^h   Højgaard, Liselotte ⁱ   Ell, P J ^j  

^a INAHTA   (Denmark)

^b Sundhedsstyrelsen   (Denmark)

^c VATAP   (United States)

^d AETSA   (Spain)

^e Ministry of Health and Ageing   (Australia)

^f NHS Quality Improvement   (United Kingdom)

^g ZonMw   (Netherlands)

^h SMM   (Norway)

ⁱ UNIVERSITY OF COPENHAGEN   (Denmark)

^j NONE

more..

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CLINICAL PRACTICE; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; DIAGNOSTIC VALUE; HEALTH CARE PLANNING; HEALTH CARE SYSTEM; HUMAN; INVESTMENT; LETTER; MEDICAL LITERATURE; MEDICAL TECHNOLOGY; NUCLEAR MEDICINE; ONCOLOGY; ORGANIZATION; POSITRON EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; PUBLICATION; QUALITY CONTROL; REPRODUCIBILITY;

EID: 10744223747     PISSN: 16197070     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s00259-003-1391-y     Document Type: Letter

References (11)

1. 1. Højgaard 2003 Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 30 637 12838956 Højgaard L. Are Health Technology Assessments a reliable tool in the analysis of the clinical value of PET in oncology? Who audits the auditors? Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2003; 30:637–664.
2. 2. http://www.nice.org.uk/catta1.asp?c=153.
3. 3. Fryback 1991 Med Decis Making 11 88 1:STN:280:By6A38ros1w%3D 1907710 Fryback DG, Thornbury JR. The efficacy of diagnostic imaging. Med Decis Making 1991; 11:88–94.
4. 4. Bradbury I, Bonnell E, Boynton J, et al. Positron emission tomography (PET) imaging in cancer management. Health Technology Assessment Report 2. Glasgow: Health Technology Board for Scotland, 2002. http://www.htbs.co.uk/docs/pdf/ASSESSMENT%20REPORT%202.pdf.
5. 5. Formidling av internasjonale metodevurderinger 2001–2003. Positronemisjonstomografi (PET)—diagnostisk og klinisk nytteverdi. SMM Report 6/2003. Oslo: Senter for Medisinsk Metodevurdering, 2003. http://www.sintef.no/smm/Publikasjoner/FramesetPublikasjoner.htm.
6. 6. Positron emission tomography, part 2i. Medical Services Advisory Committee. Canberra: Medical Services Advisory Committee, 2001. http://www.msac.gov.au/pdfs/msacref10i.pdf.
7. 7. Bradbury 2003 Br J Cancer 89 224 10.1038/sj.bjc.6601109 1:STN:280:DC%2BD3szjt1Krsg%3D%3D 12865905 Bradbury I, Facey K, Laking G, Sharp P. Investing in new technology: the PET experience. Br J Cancer 2003; 89:224–227.
8. 8. Redegørelse vedrørende PET-skanning med FDG—med saerlig henblik på kraeftdiagnostik. Copenhagen: Danish National Board of Health, Centre for Evaluation and Health Technology Assessment, 2001. http://www.cemtv.dk/publikationer/docs/PET/Redegoerelse.pdf.
9. 9. PET (positron emissions tomografi), anbefalinger for udbygning af PET og FDG produktion. Copenhagen: Danish National Board of Health, 2002. http://www.sst.dk/publ/Publ2002/KMO-PETskanningsrapport.pdf.
10. 10. Bossuyt PM, Reitsma JB, Bruns DE, Gatsonis CA, Glasziou PP, Irwing LM, Lijmer JG, Moher D, Rennie D, de Vet HCW for the STARD group. Towards complete and accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: the STARD initiative. Lancet 2003; 361:1–4 and htpp://www.consort-statement.org.
11. 11. Hailey D. Toward transparency in health technology assessment. A checklist for HTA reports. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2003; 19:1–7 and http://www.inahta.org.