Building bridges between academic research and policy formulation: The PRUFE framework - An integral part of Ontario's evidence-based HTPA process

PharmacoEconomics

Volumn 24, Issue 11, 2006, Pages 1143-1156

  Goeree, Ron ^a,b,c   Levin, Leslie ^d,e  

^a MCMASTER UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^b Programme for Appropriate Technology in Health Canada   (Canada)

^c MCMASTER UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^d ONTARIO MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND LONG TERM CARE   (Canada)

^e UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CANADA; CONFERENCE PAPER; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; HEALTH CARE COST; HEALTH CARE ORGANIZATION; HEALTH CARE POLICY; HEALTH CARE SYSTEM; HEALTH PROGRAM; HEALTH SERVICE; MEDICAL INFORMATION SYSTEM; MEDICAL RESEARCH; PRIORITY JOURNAL;

EID: 33750587608     PISSN: 11707690     EISSN: 11707690     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2165/00019053-200624110-00010     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (32)

1. Canadian Institute for Health Information (CIHI). Health care in Canada, 2005. Ottawa (ON): Canadian Institute for Health Information, 2005
2. Hay Group. Analysis of health technology utilization and costs. Report to the Medical Advisory Secretariat. 2005 Nov 11 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.health.gov.on.ca/english/providers/program/mas/mas_mn.html [Accessed 2006 Sep 23]
3. Bodenheimer T. High and rising health care costs. Part 2: technologic innovation. Ann Intern Med 2005; 142: 932-7
4. Lewin Group. Cutting edge costs: hospital and new technology. Adv Health Am Trend Watch 2002; 4 (4): 1-4
5. Feder BJ. Medical devices is hot, which is why guidant is. New York Times 2006 Jan 21 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/21/ business/21device.html?ex=1159329600&en=ecb9dc0b9d5a9d10&ei=5070 [Accessed 2006 Sep 23]
6. Murray CJL, Evans DB. Health systems performance assessment: goals, framework and overview. In: Murray CJL, Evans DB, editors. Health systems performance assessment debates, methods and empiricism. Geneva: World Health Organization, 2003: 3-22
7. National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE), UK. 2006 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.nice.org.uk/ [Accessed 2006 Sep 23]
8. Agency for Health Research and Quality (AHRQ). 2006 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.ahrq.gov/ [Accessed ]
9. Medical Services Advisory Committee (MSAC), Australia. 2006 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.msac.gov.au/ [Accessed 2006 Sep 23]
10. Blue Cross Shield. 2006 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.bcbs.com/ [Accessed 2006 Sep 23]
11. Drug Programs Branch of the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long Term Care (MOHLTC). 2006 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.health.gov.on.ca/ english/public/program/drugs/drugs_mn.html [Accessed 2006 Sep 23]
12. Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technology in Health (CADTH). 2006 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.cadth.ca/index.php/en/cdr [Accessed 2006 Sep 23]
13. Ontario Health Technology Assessment Committee. 2006 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.health.gov.on.ca/english/providers/program/mas/ohtac_about. html [Accessed 2006 Sep 23]
14. GRADE Working Group. Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ 2004; 328: 1490-8
15. Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine: levels of evidence and grades of recommendation. 2006 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.cebm.net/ levels_of_evidence.asp [Accessed 2006 Sep 23]
16. Program for Assessment of Technology in Health (PATH). 2006 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.path-hta.ca/ [Accessed 2006 Sep 23]
17. Buxton MJ, Drummond MF, Van Hout BA, et al. Modelling in economic evaluation: an unavoidable fact of life. Health Econ 1997; 6: 217-27
18. Claxton KP, Sculpher MJ. Using value of information analysis to prioritise health research: some lessons from recent UK experience. Pharmacoeconomics 2006; 24 (11): 1055-68
19. Health Technology Assessment Task Group. Health technology strategy 1.0 final report, 2004 Jun [online]. Available from URL: http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hcs- sss/alt_formats/iacb-dgiac/pdf/pubs/2004-tech-strateg/2004-tech-strateg_e.pdf [Accessed 2006 Sep 23]
20. Drummond MF, O'Brien BJ, Stoddart GL, et al. Methods for economic evaluation of health care programmes. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997
21. Garces K. Drug eluting stents: managing coronary artery stenosis following PTCA. Ottawa (ON): Canadian Coordinating Office for Health Technology Assessment (CCOHTA). Issues in Emerging Health Technologies 2002 Oct 1 (40): 1-6 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.cadth.ca/media/pdf/ 212_drugelutingstents_cetap_e.pdf [Accessed 2006 Sep 23]
22. Moussavian M, Casterella PJ, Teirstein PS. Restenosis after angioplasty. Curr Treat Options Cardiovasc Med 2001; 3 (2): 103-13
23. Morice MC, Serruys PW, Sousa JE, et al. A randomized comparison of a sirolimus-eluting stent with a standard stent for coronary revascularization. N Engl J Med 2002; 346 (23): 1773-80
24. Moses JW, O'Shaughnessy C, Caputo R, et al. The US multicenter, randomized, double-blind study of the sirolimus-eluting stent in coronary lesions: safety outcomes at 9 months [abstract]. Eur Heart J 2002; 23 Suppl. S: 264
25. Medical Advisory Secretariat, Cohen E. Review of drug-eluting coronary stents [internal document]. Toronto (ON): Ontario Ministry of Health and Long Term Care, 2003: 1-23
26. Working group on Drug Eluting Stents, Cohen E (chair). Drug eluting stents. Report on initial utilization strategy: final report and recommendations. Toronto (ON): Cardiac Care Network of Ontario (CCN), 2002: 1-15 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.ccn.on.ca/index.cfm?.fuseaction= ts&tm=23&ts=163&tsb=0 [Accessed 2006 Sep 23]
27. Bowen J, Hopkins R, He Y, et al. Interim report: systematic review and cost-effectiveness analysis of drug eluting stents compared to bare metal stents for percutaneous coronary interventions in Ontario, 2005: 1-152 [online]. Available from URL: http://path-hta.ca/report.htm [Accessed 2006 Sep 23]
28. Shrive FM, Manns BJ, Galbraith PD, et al. Economic evaluation of sirolimus-eluting stents. Can Med Assoc J 2005; 172 (3): 345-51
29. Lord SJ, Howard K, Allen F, et al. A systematic review and economic analysis of drug-eluting coronary stents available in Australia. Med J Aust 2005; 183 (9): 464-71
30. Mittmann N, Brown A, Seung SJ, et al. Economic evaluation of drug eluting stents. Technology report no. 53. Ottawa (ON): Canadian Coordinating Office for Health Technology Assessment, 2005
31. Bowen J, DeRose G, Hopkins R, et al. Systematic review and cost-effectiveness analysis of elective endovascular repair compared to open surgical repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms. Interim report to the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long Term Care Medical Advisory Secretariat, 2005: 1-225 [online]. Available from URL: http://path-hta.ca/report.htm [Accessed 2006 Sep 23]
32. Wright C. The rise and rise of stents. Scrip 2006 Jan: 10-13 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.scripmag.com [Accessed 2006 Sep 23]