Can health technologies be assessed using routine data?

International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care

Volumn 21, Issue 1, 2005, Pages 96-103

  Stevens, Andrew J ^a   Raftery, James ^a   Roderick, Paul ^b,c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BIRMINGHAM   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHAMPTON   (United Kingdom)

^c SOUTHAMPTON GENERAL HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Administrative data; Disease registers; Health technology assessment; Health care evaluation; Registries; Routine data

Indexed keywords

BIOTECHNOLOGY; CLASSIFICATION (OF INFORMATION); DATA RECORDING; DATABASE SYSTEMS; LAWS AND LEGISLATION; PATIENT TREATMENT;

DATA CHARACTERISTICS; DATA SETS; HEALTH TECHNOLOGIES; HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT (HTA);

HEALTH CARE;

BIOMEDICAL TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT; CLASSIFICATION; CODING; CONFIDENTIALITY; DATA ANALYSIS; DATA BASE; EVALUATION; HEALTH CARE; HEALTH CARE QUALITY; LITERATURE; REGISTER; REVIEW; TREATMENT OUTCOME; UNITED KINGDOM;

EID: 13644262186     PISSN: 02664623     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S0266462305050129     Document Type: Review

References (32)

1. Al-Shahi R, Warlow C. Using patient-identifiable data for observational research and audit. BMJ. 2000;321:1031-1032.
2. Bashford JN, Norwood J, Chapman SR. Why are patients prescribed proton pump inhibitors? Retrospective analysis of link between morbidity and prescribing in the General Practice Research Database [see comments]. BMJ. 1998;317:452-456.
3. Beck EJ, Mandalia S, Williams I, et al. Decreased morbidity and use of hospital services in English HIV-infected individuals with increased uptake of anti-retroviral therapy 1996-1997. National Prospective Monitoring System Steering Group. AIDS. 1999;13:2157-2164.
4. Black N. Why we need observational studies to evaluate the effectiveness of health care. BMJ. 1996;312:1215-1218.
5. Cartwrighl FF. A social history of medicine. New York: Longman; 1977: 118.
6. Cochrane A. Effectiveness and efficiency random reflections on the Health Service. Leeds: Nuffield Provincial Hospitals Trust: 1972.
7. Davis CL, Marsh CL. Reduction of organ-retrieval damage and organ-discard rales. Lancet. 1999;354:1136-1137.
8. Department of Health NHS Executive. Research and development in the new NHS: Functions and responsibilities. London: Department of Health; 1994.
9. Department of Health. Assessing the effects of health technologies: Principles, practice, proposals. London: Department of Health; 1992.
10. Department of Health. Breast Screening England 1998-1999. London: Department of Health; 2000.
11. Department of Health. Cervical Screening programme. England, 1998-1999. London: Department of Health; 2000.
12. Department of Health. NHS Immunisation Statistics, England 1998-1999. London: Department of Health; 1999.
13. Galloway MJ, Taylor PR, Proctor SJ. Implementing clinical governance in the United Kingdom: The role of a regional haematology group. Northern Regional Haematologists Group. Br J Haematol. 1999;107:680-684.
14. Helliwell T, Hinde S, Warren T. Cancer registries fear collapse. BMJ. 2001;322:730.
15. HTA Programme. National Coordinating Centre for Health Technology Assessment. HTA priorities. Available at: http://www.hta.nhsweb.nhs.uk.
16. Hunt P. Health and Social Care Bill. London: House of Lords; 26 February 2001.
17. Jarman B, Gault S, Alves B, et al. Explaining differences in English hospital death rates using routinely collected data. BMJ. 1999;318:1515-1520.
18. Knox E. Information needs in public health. In: Holland WW, Detels R, Knox G, eds. Oxford textbook on public health. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1991.
19. Morris PJ, Johnson RJ, Fuggle SV, Belger MA, Briggs JD. Analysis of factors that affect outcome of primary cadaveric renal transplantation in the UK. HLA Task Force of the Kidney Advisory Group of the United Kingdom Transplant Service Authority (UKTSSA). Lancet. 1999;354:1147-1152.
20. National Board of Health and Welfare. National Health Care Quality Registers in Sweden. Stockholm: National Board of Health and Welfare; 1999-2000.
21. Newton J, Garner S. Disease registers in England. A report commissioned by the Department of Health Policy Research Programme in support of the White Paper entitled Saving Lives: Our Healthier Nation. 2002. Oxford: Institute of Health Sciences; 2002.
22. Office of Technology Assessment. Development of medical technologies: Opportunities for assessment. Washington, DC: US Government Publishing Office; 1976.
23. Petrou M, Modell B, Shetty S, Khan M, Ward RH. Long-term effect of prospective detection of high genetic risk on couples' reproductive life: Data for thalassaemia. Prenat Diagn. 2000;20:469-474.
24. Renal Association. The UK Renal Registry 2000. London: The Renal Association; 2002.
25. Sheldon TA. Please bypass the PORT [editorial, see comments]. BMJ. 1994;309:142-143.
26. Taylor PR, Angus B, Owen JP, Proctor SJ. Hodgkin's disease: A population-adjusted clinical epidemiology study (PACE) of management at presentation. Northern Region Lymphoma Group. QJM. 1998;91:131-139.
27. Templeton A, Morris JK, Parslow W. Factors that affect outcome of in-vitro fertilisation treatment. Lancet. 1996;348:1402-1406.
28. The Danish Medical Research Council. Health Science Information Banks - Biobanks. Copenhagen: The Danish Medical Research Council; 1996.
29. The West of Scotland Coronary Preventive Study Group. Computerised record linkage: Compared with traditional patient follow-up methods in clinical trials and illustrated in a prospective epidemiological study. The West of Scotland Coronary Prevention Study Group. J Clin Epidemiol. 1995;48:1441-1452.
30. Warren KS, Mosteller F. Doing more harm than good: The evaluation of health care interventions. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 1993;703:341.
31. Wigmore SJ, Seeney FM, Pleass HC, et al. Kidney damage during organ retrieval: Data from UK National Transplant Database. Kidney Advisory Group [see comments|. Lancet. 1999;354:1143-1146.
32. Williams JG. Making routine data adequate to support clinical audit. "Routine" is inadequately defined [letter, comments]. BMJ. 1995;310:665-666.