Cross-national comparison of technology assessment processes

International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care

Volumn 20, Issue 3, 2004, Pages 300-310

  García Altés, Anna ^a   Ondategui Parra, Silvia ^b   Neumann, Peter J ^c  

^a UNIVERSITAT AUTÒNOMA DE BARCELONA   (Spain)

^b BRIGHAM AND WOMEN S HOSPITAL   (United States)

^c HARVARD SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH   (United States)

Author keywords

Assessment process; Coverage decisions; International comparison

Indexed keywords

DISEASE CONTROL; ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL EFFECTS; INFORMATION RETRIEVAL; SOCIETIES AND INSTITUTIONS;

ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS; TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT PROCESSES;

HEALTH CARE;

ARTICLE; BIOMEDICAL TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT; CANADA; DEVICE; DRUG FORMULARY; ECONOMIC EVALUATION; SPAIN; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW; UNITED KINGDOM; UNITED STATES;

EID: 4043162620     PISSN: 02664623     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S0266462304001126     Document Type: Article

References (95)

1. Agencia de evaluación de Tecnologías Sanitarias (AETS), Instituto de Salud Carlos; III-Ministerio de Sanidad y Consumo. Tomografía por emisión de positrones (PET) con 18fdg en oncología clínica (revisión sistemática). Madrid: AETS-Instituto de Salud Carlos III; 2001.
2. Agencia de evaluación de Tecnologías Sanitarias (AETS), Instituto de Salud Carlos III-Ministerio de Sanidad y Consumo. Efectividad de los apósitos especiales en el tratamiento de las úlceras. Madrid: AETS-Instituto de Salud Carlos III; 2001.
3. Agencia de evaluación de Tecnologías Sanitarias (AETS), Instituto de Salud Carlos III-Ministerio de Sanidad y Consumo. Efectividad de las bombas de infusión de insulina. Madrid: AETS-Instituto de Salud Carlos III; 2001.
4. Agencia de evaluación de Tecnologías Sanitarias (AETS), Instituto de Salud Carlos III-Ministerio de Sanidad y Consumo. Prótesis de hombro en indicaciones de procesos degenerativos o traumatológicos. Madrid: AETS-Instituto de Salud Carlos III; 2001.
5. Agencia de evaluación de Tecnologías Sanitarias (AETS), Instituto de Salud Carlos III-Ministerio de Sanidad y Consumo. Braquiterapia para el tratamiento del cáncer ginecológico y de otras localizaciones. Madrid: AETS-Instituto de Salud Carlos III; 2000.
6. Agencia de evaluación de Tecnologías Sanitarias (AETS), Instituto de Salud Carlos III-Ministerio de Sanidad y Consumo. Riesgos para la salud causados por implantes de silicona en general, con atención especial a los implantes mamarios. Madrid: AETS-Instituto de Salud Carlos III; 2000.
7. Agencia de evaluación de Tecnologías Sanitarias (AETS), Instituto de Salud Carlos III-Ministerio de Sanidad y Consumo. Radioterapia Intraoperatoria. Madrid: AETS-Instituto de Salud Carlos III; 1999.
8. Agencia de evaluación de Tecnologías Sanitarias (AETS), Instituto de Salud Carlos III-Ministerio de Sanidad y Consumo. Tomografia por Emisión de Positrones con Fluordeoxiglucosa FDG-PET en Neurología. Madrid: AETS-Instituto de Salud Carlos III; 1999.
9. Agencia de evaluación de Tecnologías Sanitarias (AETS), Instituto de Salud Carlos III-Ministerio de Sanidad y Consumo. Catálogo 2000: Informes y Publicaciones de las Agencias Españolas de ETS. Madrid: AETS-Instituto de Salud Carlos III; 1999.
10. Agencia de evaluación de Tecnologías Sanitarias (AETS), Instituto de Salud Carlos III-Ministerio de Sanidad y Consumo. Guía para la elaboración de Informes de Evaluación de Tecnologías Sanitarias. Madrid: AETS-Instituto de Salud Carlos III; 1999.
11. Agencia de evaluación de Tecnologías Sanitarias (AETS), Instituto de Salud Carlos III-Ministerio de Sanidad y Consumo. Diagnóstico de lesiones mamarias detectadas en cribado poblacional de cáncer de mama mediante mamografía. Madrid: AETS-Instituto de Salud Carlos III; 1999.
12. Alban A. The role of economic appraisal in Denmark. Soc Sci Med. 1994;38:1647-1652.
13. Bagnall AM, Forbes C, Lewis R, Golder S, Kleijnen J. An update of a rapid and systematic review of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the taxanes used in the treatment of advanced breast cancer. York: NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York; 2001.
14. Banta HD, Perry S. A history of ISTAHC. A personal perspective on its first 10 years. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 1997;13:430-453.
15. Bero LA, Grilli R, Grimshaw JM, et al. Closing the gap between research and practice: An overview of systematic reviews of interventions to promote the implementation of research findings. BMJ. 1998;327:465-468.
16. Brady B, McAuley L, Shukla VK. Economic evaluation of zanamivir for the treatment of influenza. Ottawa: Canadian Coordinating Office for Health Technology Assessment (CCOHTA); 2001. Technology report no 13.
17. Burls A, Clark W, Stewart T, et al. Zanamivir for the treatment of influenza in adults. Birmingham: Department of Public Health and Epidemiology, University of Birmingham; 2000.
18. Busse R, Orvain J, Velasco M, et al. Best practice in undertaking and reporting health technology assessments: Working group 4 report. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 1997;18:361-422.
19. Chilcott J, Wight J, Lloyd Jones M, Tappenden P. The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of pioglitazone for type 2 diabetes mellitus. Sheffield: University of Sheffield School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield; 2001.
20. Clegg A, Bryant J, Nicholson T, et al. Clinical and cost-effectiveness of donepezil, rivastigmine and galantamine for Alzheimer's disease. Southampton: Rapid Reviews Team, Wessex Institute for Health Research and Development, University of Southampton; 2000.
21. Cranovsky R, Matillon Y, Banta D. EUR-ASSESS project subgroup report on coverage. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 1997;13:287-332.
22. Davies L, Coyle D, Drummond M, et al. The current status of economic appraisal of health technology in the European Community: Report of the network. Soc Sci Med. 1994;38:1601-1607.
23. Dinnes J, Cave C, Huang S, Major K, Milne R. The effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of temozolomide for the treatment of recurrent malignant glioma. Southampton: Wessex Institute for Health Research and Development, University of Southampton; 2000.
24. Einarson TR, Iskedjian M. Novel antipsychotics for patients with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder: A systematic review. Ottawa: Canadian Coordinating Office for Health Technology Assessment (CCOHTA); 2001. Technology report no 17.
25. Eisenberg JM, Zarin D. Health technology assessment in the United States. Past, present, and future. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2002;18:192-198.
26. Forbes C, Shirran L, Bagnall AM, Duffy S, ter Riet G. A rapid and systematic review of the clinical effectiveness and cost effectiveness of topotecan for ovarian cancer. York: NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York; 2001.
27. Garber S, Ridgely MS, Taylor RS, Meili R. Managed care and the evaluation and adoption of emerging medical technologies. Santa Monica: Rand; 2000.
28. Granados A, Jonsson E, Banta HD, et al. EUR-ASSESS project subgroup on dissemination and evaluation of impact. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 1997;13:220-286.
29. Granados A. [The evaluation of medical technologies]. Med Clin (Barc). 1995;104:581-585.
30. Hagenfeldt K, Asua J, Bellucci S, et al. Systems for routine information sharing in HTA: Working group 2 report. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2002;18:273-320.
31. Hailey DM, Crowe BL. The influence of health technology assessment on the diffusion of MRI in Australia. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 1993;9:522-529.
32. Hailey DM. The influence of technology assessment by advisory bodies on health policy and practice. Health Policy. 1993;25:243-253.
33. Henshall C, Oortwijn W, Stevens A, Granados A, Banta D. Priority setting for health technology assessment. Theoretical considerations and practical approaches. Priority setting subgroup of the EUR-ASSESS Project. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 1997;13:144-185.
34. Husereau DR, Brady B, McGeer A. Oseltamivir for the treatment of suspected influenza: A clinical and economic assessment. Ottawa: Canadian Coordinating Office for Health Technology Assessment (CCOHTA); 2001. Technology report no 21.
35. Institute of Medicine (IOM: Goodman C, ed.). Medical technology assessment directory. Washington: National Academy Press; 1988.
36. Institute of Medicine (IOM: Mosteller F, ed.). Assessing medical technology. Washington: National Academy Press; 1985.
37. Jacob R, McGregor M. Assessing the impact of health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 1997;13:68-80.
38. Jobanputra P, Parry D, Fry-Smith A, Burls A. Effectiveness of autologous chondrocyte transplantation for hyaline cartilage defects in knees. Birmingham: West Midlands Development and Evaluation Service, The University of Birmingham; 2000.
39. Lehoux P, Blume S. Technology assessment and the sociopolitics of health technologies. J Health Polit Policy Law. 2000;25:1083-1120.
40. Lewis R, Whiting P, ter Riet G, O'Meara S, Glanville J. A rapid systematic review of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of debriding agents in treating surgical wounds healing by secondary intention. York: NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York; 2000.
41. Lister-Sharp D, McDonagh M, Saeed Khan K, Kleijnen J. A systematic review of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the taxanes used in the treatment of advanced breast and ovarian cancer. York: NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York; 2000.
42. Lord J, Paisley S, Taylor R. The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of rosiglitazone for type 2 diabetes mellitus. London: National Institute for Clinical Excellence; 2000.
43. Lord J, Paisley S. The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of methylphenidate for hyperactivity in childhood. London: NICE Appraisals Group; 2000.
44. McDonagh MS, Bachmann LM, Golder S, Kleijnen J, ver Riet G. A systematic review of the clinical effectiveness and cost effectiveness of glycoprotein Hb/IIIa antagonists in the medical management of unstable angina. York: NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, The University of York; 2000.
45. McGahan L, Noorani HZ. Surveillance mammography after treatment for primary breast cancer. Ottawa: Canadian Coordinating Office for Health Technology Assessment (CCOHTA); 2000.
46. McGahan L. Behavioural interventions for preschool children with autism. Ottawa: Canadian Coordinating Office for Health Technology Assessment (CCOHTA); 2001. Technology report no 18.
47. Meads C, Cummins C, Jolly K, Hyde C, Burls A. Coronary artery stents in the treatment of ischaemic heart disease. Birmingham: West Midlands Development and Evaluation Service, Department of Public Health & Epidemiology, University of Birmingham; 1999.
48. Metge CJ, Vercaigne LM, Carrie A, Sarveiya V, Zhanel GG. The new fluoroquinolones in community-acquired pneumonia: Clinical and economic perspectives. Ottawa: Canadian Coordinating Office for Health Technology Assessment (CCOHTA); 2001. Technology report no 20.
49. NICE. The appropriate use of proton pump inhibitors in the treatment of dyspepsia. London: National Institute for Clinical Excellence; 2000.
50. NICE. The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of celecoxib, rofecoxib, meloxicam and etodolac (cox-II inhibitors) for rheumatoid arthritis and osteoarthritis. London: NICE Appraisal Team; 2000.
51. Noorani H, McGahan L. Criteria for selection of adult recipients for heart, cadaveric kidney, and liver transplantation. Ottawa: Canadian Coordinating Office for Health Technology Assessment (CCOHTA); 1999.
52. Noorani H, Picot J. Assessment of videoconferencing in telehealth in Canada. Ottawa: Canadian Coordinating Office for Health Technology Assessment (CCOHTA); 2001. Technology report no 14.
53. Noorani HZ, Connolly SJ, Talajic M, et al. Implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) therapy for sudden cardiac death. Ottawa: Canadian Coordinating Office for Health Technology Assessment (CCOHTA); 2000.
54. Noorani HZ, McGahan L. Predictive genetic testing for breast and prostate cancer. Ottawa, Canadian Coordinating Office for Health Technology Assessment (CCOHTA); 1999.
55. O'Meara S, Riemsma R, Shirran L, Mather L, ter Riet G. A systematic review of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of sibutramine in the management of obesity. York: NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York; 2000.
56. O'Meara S, Riemsma R, Shirran L, Mather L, ter Riet S. A systematic review of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of orlistat in the management of obesity. York: NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York; 2001.
57. Oortwijn WJ, Banta D, Vondeling H, Bouter L. Identification and priority setting for health technology assessment in The Netherlands: Actors and activities. Health Policy. 1999;47:241-253.
58. Oortwijn WJ, Vondeling H, Bouter L. The use of societal criteria in priority setting for health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 1998;14:226-236.
59. Parkes J, Milne R, Bryant J. Implantable cardioverter defibrillator for cardiac arrhythmias. Southampton: The Rapid Reviews Team, National Coordinating Centre for Health Technology Assessment, University of Southampton; 2000.
60. Paszat L, Grunfeld E, van Walraven C, et al. A population-based cohort study of surveillance mammography after treatment of primary breast cancer. Ottawa: Canadian Coordinating Office for Health Technology Assessment (CCOHTA); 2001. Technology report no 15.
61. Payne N, Beard S, Brocklebank D, et al. Clinical and cost effectiveness of inhaler devices for children with chronic asthma. Sheffield: Trent Institute for Health Services Research, School of Health & Related Research (ScHARR), The University of Sheffield; 2000.
62. Payne N, Chilcott J, McGoogan E. Liquid-based cytology in cervical screening. Sheffield: The University of Sheffield; 2000.
63. Perry S, Eliastam M. The National Center for Health Care Technology. JAMA. 1981;245:2510-2511.
64. Perry S, Gardner E, Thamer M. Status of health technology assessment worldwide. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 1997;13:81-98.
65. Perry S, Hanft R, Chrzanowski R. Report from the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, Canberra, Health Technology division. Perceptions of Australian Health Technology Assessments: Report of a survey. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 1993;9:588-590.
66. Perry S, Thamer M. Medical innovation and the critical role of health technology assessment. JAMA. 1999;282:1869-18672.
67. Rettig RA. Health care in transition: Technology assessment in the private sector. Santa Monica: Rand; 1997.
68. Schachter HM, Kovesi T, Ducharme F, et al. The challenges of early assessment: Leukotriene receptor antagonists. Ottawa: Canadian Coordinating Office for Health Technology Assessment (CCOHTA); 2001. Technology report no 19.
69. Scott DA, Clegg A, Sidhu M, Hewitson P, Waugh N. Clinical and cost-effectiveness of paclitaxel, docetaxel, gemcitabine and vinorelbine in lung cancer. Southampton: Rapid Reviews Team, Wessex Institute for Health Research and Development, University of Southampton; 2001.
70. Shani S, Siebzehner MI, Luxenburg O, Shemer J. Setting priorities for the adoption of health technologies on a national level-the Israeli experience. Health Policy. 2000;54:169-185.
71. Shepherd J, Waugh N, Hewitson P. Combination therapy (interferon alfa and ribavirin) in the treatment of chronic hepatitis C. Southampton: Rapid Reviews Team, Wessex Institute for Health Research and Development, University of Southampton; 2000.
72. Shukla VK, McAuley L. Novel antipsychotics in patients with bipolar disorder: A systematic review. Ottawa: Canadian Coordinating Office for Health Technology Assessment (CCOHTA); 2001. Technology report no 16.
73. Shukla VK, Otten N, Coyle D. Drug treatments for Alzheimer's disease. III. A review of pharmacoeconomic evaluations. Ottawa: Canadian Coordinating Office for Health Technology Assessment (CCOHTA); 2000. Technology report no 11.
74. Shukla VK, Otten N, Dubé C, Moher D. Use of cisapride in patients with non-ulcer dyspepsia: A meta-analysis of randomized trials. Ottawa: Canadian Coordinating Office for Health Technology Assessment (CCOHTA); 2000.
75. Shukla VK, Otten N. Insulin lispro: A critical evaluation. Otawa: Canadian Coordinating Office for Health Technology Assessment (CCOHTA); 1999.
76. Song F, O'Meara S, Wilson P, Kleijnen J, Golder S. The effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the prophylactic removal of wisdom teeth. York: NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York; 1999.
77. Stewart A, Sandercock J, Bryan S, et al. The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of riluzole for motor neurone disease. Birmingham: West Midlands Development and Evaluation Service, The University of Birmingham; 2000.
78. Tappenden P, Chilcott J, O'Hagan T, et al. Cost effectiveness of beta interferons and glatiramer acetate in the management of multiple sclerosis. Sheffield: Centre for Bayesian Statistics in Health Economics, School of Health and Related Research (ScHARR), University of Sheffield; 2001.
79. Taylor R. Pharmaceutical regulation: The early experience of the NHS National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) appraisal process-where are we heading? Value Health. 2001;4:8-11.
80. Taylor R. The effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of different prostheses for primary total hip replacement. London: NICE Appraisal Group; 2000.
81. Taylor RS, Paisley S. The clinical and cost effectiveness of advances in hearing aid technology. London: National Institute for Clinical Excellence; 2000.
82. Tunis SR, Kang JL. Improvements in Medicare coverage of new technology. Health Affairs. 2001;20:83-85.
83. VA Technology Assessment Program (VATAP). Computerized lower limb prostheses (Short Report). Boston: VA Technology Assessment Program; 2000.
84. VA Technology Assessment Program (VATAP). Impacts of case management programs (Short Report). Boston: VA Technology Assessment Program; 2000.
85. VA Technology Assessment Program (VATAP). Optical lens fabrication system (Short Report). Boston: VA Technology Assessment Program; 2000.
86. VA Technology Assessment Program (VATAP). Positron emission tomography (Update). Boston: VA Technology Assessment Program; 1999.
87. VA Technology Assessment Program (VATAP). Tablet Splitting (Short Report), Boston: VA Technology Assessment Program; 2000.
88. VA Technology Assessment Program (VATAP). Treatment options for male erectile dysfunction: A systematic review of published studies of effectiveness. Boston: VA Technology Assessment Program; 2000.
89. Vale L, McCormack K, Scott N, Grant A. Systematic review of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of laparoscopic versus open repair of inguinal hernia. Aberdeen: Health Services Research Unit and Health Economics Research Unit, University of Aberdeen; 2000.
90. Vardulaki KA, Bennett-Lloyd BD, Parfitt J, et al. A systematic review of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer. London: National Institute for Clinical Excellence; 2000.
91. Wake B, Bryan S, Barton P, et al. Fluradarabine as second line therapy for b-cell chronic lymphocytic leukaemia. Birmingham: Department of Public Health and Epidemiology, and The Health Economics Facility, University of Birmingham; 2001.
92. Ward S, Bansback N, Morris E, Calvert N. A review of the clinical and cost-effectiveness of gemcitabine for the treatment of pancreatic cancer. Sheffield: The School of Health and Related Research (ScHARR), University of Sheffield; 2000.
93. Wolfson C, Moride Y, Perrault A, et al. Drug treatments for Alzheimer's disease. I. A comparative analysis of clinical trials. Ottawa: Canadian Coordinating Office for Health Technology Assessment (CCOHTA); 2000.
94. Wolfson C, Moride Y, Perrault A, et al. Drug treatments for Alzheimer's disease. 2. A review of outcome measures in clinical trials. Ottawa: Canadian Coordinating Office for Health Technology Assessment (CCOHTA); 2000.
95. World Health Organization. 1997-1999 World Health Statistics Annual, 25 February 2003. Available at: http://www3.who.int/whosis/mort/text/description. cfm?path=statistics,whsa,mort_info&language=english