An evaluation of methods used in health technology assessments produced for the Medical Services Advisory Committee

Medical Journal of Australia

Volumn 187, Issue 5, 2007, Pages 289-292

  Petherick, Emily S ^a   Villanueva, Elmer V ^b   Dumville, Jo ^a   Bryan, Emma J ^b   Dharmage, Shyamali ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF YORK   (United Kingdom)

^b MONASH UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

^c UNIVERSITY OF MELBOURNE   (Australia)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ANALYTIC METHOD; ANALYTICAL PARAMETERS; ARTICLE; BIOMEDICAL TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT; BIOTECHNOLOGY; CLINICAL EFFECTIVENESS; CONFLICT OF INTEREST; DATA EXTRACTION; MEDICAL RESEARCH; METHODOLOGY; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; QUALITY CONTROL; STANDARDIZATION; ADVISORY COMMITTEE; AUSTRALIA; EVALUATION; EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE; HEALTH CARE QUALITY; HUMAN; PUBLIC HEALTH; REPRODUCIBILITY; STANDARD;

ADVISORY COMMITTEES; AUSTRALIA; EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE; HUMANS; NATIONAL HEALTH PROGRAMS; QUALITY ASSURANCE, HEALTH CARE; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; RESEARCH DESIGN; TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT, BIOMEDICAL;

EID: 34848864294     PISSN: 0025729X     EISSN: 13265377     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.5694/j.1326-5377.2007.tb01246.x     Document Type: Article

References (20)

1. Goodman C. An introduction to health technology assessment. Falls Church, Va: The Lewin Group, 1998.
2. Hailey D. Health care technology in Australia. Health Policy 1994; 30: 23-72.
3. Hailey DM. Health technology assessment in Australia: a need to re-focus. J Qual Clin Pract 1996; 16: 123-129.
4. Medical Services Advisory Committee. What is MSAC? http://www.msac.gov.au/internet/msac/publishing.nsf/Content/what-is-1 (accessed Mar 2007).
5. May C, Mort M, Williams T, et al. Health technology assessment in its local contexts: studies of telehealthcare. Soc Sci Med 2003; 57: 697-710.
6. National Health and Medical Research Council. How to use the evidence: assessment and application of scientific evidence. Canberra: NHMRC, 2000.
7. Busse R, Velasco M, Perleth M, et al. Best practice in undertaking and reporting health technology assessments. Working group 4 report. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2002; 18: 361-422.
8. Higgins J, Green S, editors. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Version 4.2.6. The Cochrane Library, Issue 4, 2006. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
9. Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. Undertaking systematic review of research on effectiveness: CRD's guidance for those carrying out or commissioning reviews. York: CRD, 2001. http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/crd/ report4.htm (accessed Jul 2007).
10. Moher D, Cook DJ, Eastwood S, et al. Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUOROM statement. Quality of Reporting of Meta-analyses. Lancet 1999; 354: 1896-1900.
11. Schulz KF, Chalmers I, Hayes RJ, Altman DG. Empirical evidence of bias. Dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials. JAMA 1995; 273: 408-412.
12. Greenhalgh T. Assessing the methodological quality of published papers. BMJ 1997; 315: 305-308.
13. Hailey D. Towards transparency in health technology assessment: a checklist for HTA reports. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2003; 19: 1-7.
14. Medical Services Advisory Committee. Funding for new medical technologies and procedures: application and assessment guidelines. Canberra: MSAC, 2000.
15. Medical Advisory Secretariat, Ontario. Technologies for osteoarthritis of the knee. Integrated health technology policy assessment. October 2005. https://ospace.scholarsportal.info/bitstream/1873/1875/1/ 259170.pdf (accessed Jul 2007).
16. NHS Research & Development. The HTA programme. The principles underlying the work of the National Coordinating Centre for Health Technology assessment. March 2007. http://www.ncchta.org/sundry/ probity.pdf (accessed Jul 2007).
17. Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. Finding studies for systematic reviews: a checklist for researchers. York: CRD, 2006. http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/crd/revsrch.doc (accessed Jul 2007).
18. Olsen O, Middleton P, Ezzo J, et al. Quality of Cochrane reviews: assessment of sample from 1998. BMJ 2001; 323: 829-832.
19. Menon D, Topfer LA. Health technology assessment in Canada. A decade in review. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2000; 16: 896-902.
20. Medical Services Advisory Committee. Guidelines for the assessment of diagnostic technologies. Canberra: MSAC, 2005.