Joint project of the International Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment - Part 2: Managing the diffusion of positron emission tomography with health technology assessment

International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care

Volumn 22, Issue 2, 2006, Pages 149-154

  Adams, Elizabeth J ^a,g   Almazán, Cari ^b   Mørland, Berit ^c   Bradbury, Ian ^d   King, Richard ^e   Rheinberger, Paul ^f  

^a Veterans Administration   (United States)

^b Catalan Agency for Health Technology Assessment and Research   (Spain)

^c NORWEGIAN KNOWLEDGE CENTRE FOR THE HEALTH SERVICES   (Norway)

^d UNIVERSITY OF ULSTER   (United Kingdom)

^e MONASH MEDICAL CENTRE   (Australia)

^f National Association of Statutory Health Insurance Physicians   (Germany)

^g VA BOSTON HEALTHCARE SYSTEM   (United States)

Author keywords

Diffusion of innovation; Health policy; Positron emission tomography; Technology assessment; Tomography emission computed

Indexed keywords

DIFFUSION; HEALTH CARE; PATIENT TREATMENT; PROJECT MANAGEMENT; PUBLIC POLICY;

DIFFUSION OF INNOVATION; HEALTH POLICY; TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT; TOMOGRAPHY EMISSION COMPUTED;

POSITRON EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY;

BIOMEDICAL TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT; CONFERENCE PAPER; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; DIAGNOSTIC PROCEDURE; FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT; HEALTH CARE POLICY; HEALTH CARE QUALITY; HEALTH CARE UTILIZATION; HEALTH SERVICE; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PATIENT CARE; POSITRON EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; TREATMENT PLANNING; VALIDATION PROCESS;

EID: 33645759276     PISSN: 02664623     EISSN: 14716348     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (22)

1. Adams E, Flynn K. Positron emission tomography: Descriptive analysis of experience with PET in VA. Systematic reviews: FDG-PET as a diagnostic test in cancer and Alzheimer's disease. Veterans Health Administration: 1998. Available at: www.va.gov/vatap.
2. Adams EJ, Asua J, Olasagasti JG, et al. On Behalf of INAHTA. Positron emission tomography: Experience with PET and synthesis of the evidence. Stockholm: International Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment; 1999. Available at: www.inahta.org.
3. Almazan C. Update of the Indications of the PET in Oncology With Public Coverage in Catalonia. Informatiu AATRM. 2004;32:3-4. Available at: http://www.gencat.net/salut/depsan/units/aatrm/pdf/but32en.pdf.
4. Bradbury, I, Bonell 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. Available at: http://docs.scottishmedicines.org/docs/pdf/ASSESSMENT%20REPORT%202.pdf.
5. Bundesauschuss der Ärzte und Krankenkassen. Health technology assessment-39. Positronen-emissions-tomographie (PET) [in German]. 2002. Available at: http://www.kbv.de/hta.
6. Business and Industry Advisory Committee to the OECD. Comment on health technology assessment (HTA) and the OECD project on new and emerging health related technologies (NEHRT). Presented at the OECD Workshop on the NEHRT Project October 27-28, 2003. The Hague, The Netherlands.
7. Flynn K, Adams E, Anderson D. Positron emission tomography: Descriptive analysis of experience with PET in VA. Systematic reviews: FDG-PET as a diagnostic test for cancer and Alzheimer's disease. Veterans Health Administration: 1996. Available at: www.va.gov/vatap.
8. Health Technology Board for Scotland. Health technology assessment advice 2. Positron emission tomography (PET) imaging in cancer management. No. 0048. Glasgow: Health Technology Board for Scotland. 2002. Available at: http://docs.scottishmedicines.org/docs/pdf/ADVICE2.pdf.
9. 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;30:637-641.
10. Højgaard L. (Reply). Letter to the editor. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2004;31:297-298.
11. INAHTA (Reply). Letter to the editor. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2004;31:295-297.
12. Medical Services Advisory Committee (MSAC). Positron emission tomography (PET) for a number of services-March 2000. MSAC Reference 02. Canberra, Australia: Department of Health and Aged Care; March 2000. Available at: http://www.msac.gov.au/reports.htm.
13. Medical Services Advisory Committee (MSAC). Positron emission tomography (PET) for a number of services-August 2001. MSAC Reference 10 part 2 (ii). Canberra, Australia: Department of Health and Aged Care; August 2001. Available at: http://www.msac.gov.au/reports.htm.
14. Morland B. Positron emission tomography (PET) - Diagnostic and clinical use [in Norwegian]. (SMM-Report 6/2003). Norwegian Center for Health Technology Assessment (SMM) 2003.
15. Norwegian Health Department Health Budget 2004. Helsebudsjettet 2004: Prioriterer dem som trenger det mest. Pressemelding [in Norwegian]. Nr. 75. October 8, 2003. Available at: http://odin.dep.no/hod/norsk/aktuelt/ pressesenter/pressem/042071-070172/dok-bn.html.
16. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Health Project. Health technologies and decision making. Paris: OECD Publishing; 2005. Available at: www.oecd.org/health.
17. Scottish Executive Health Department. Implementation of HTBS' health technology assessment of positron-emission tomography in Scotland. Report and recommendations. October 2003. Available at: http://www.show.scot.nhs.uk/sehd/ mels/hdl2003.63.pdf.
18. Smiseth OA, Myhre ES, Aas M, Gribbestad IS, Eikvar LK, Kjonniksen I. Positron emission tomography (PET) [in Norwegian]. (SMM-Report 8/2000) The Norwegian Knowledge Centre for the Health Services (NOKC) 2000.
19. US Department of Health and Human Services. Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Medicare coverage database. National coverage determination for PET (FDG) (Section 220.6.1-15). Available at: http://www.cms.hhs.gov/mcd/ index_list.asp?list_type=ncd#PP.
20. Valk PE. Do we need randomised trials to evaluate diagnostic procedures? Controversies: Against. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2004;31:132-135.
21. Van Tintern H, Hoekstra OS, Boers M. Do we need randomised trials to evaluate diagnostic procedures? Controversies: Pro. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2004;31:129-132.
22. Van Tinteren H, Hoekstra OS, Boers M. (Reply). The need for health technology assessments of PET. Letter to the Editor. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2003;30:1438-1439.