Commentary on the article "Key principles for the improved conduct of health technology assessments for resource allocation decisions"

International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care

Volumn 24, Issue 3, 2008, Pages 362-365

  Banta, H David ^a,b  

^a MAASTRICHT UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

^b NONE   (France)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BIOMEDICAL TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; DECISION MAKING; HEALTH CARE PLANNING; HEALTH CARE POLICY; NOTE; PHARMACEUTICAL CARE; RESOURCE ALLOCATION;

EID: 46749130941     PISSN: 02664623     EISSN: 14716348     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S0266462308081038     Document Type: Note

References (12)

1. Cochrane A. Effectiveness and efficiency. London: The Nuffield Provincial Hospitals Trust; 1992.
2. Cochrane Collaboration. http://www.cochrane.org.
3. Drummond M, Stoddart G, Torrance G. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1987.
4. Gold MR, Siegel JE, Russel LB, Weinstein M. Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1996.
5. Goldsmith L, Henderson B, Hurley J. 2004. Economic evaluation across the four faces of prevention: A Canadian perspective. Hamilton, Ontario: McMaster University and the Center for Health Economics and Policy Analysis.
6. Henshall C, Oortwijn W, Stevens A, et al. Priority setting for health technology assessment. A paper by the Prioriy Setting Subgroup of the EUR-ASSESS Project. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 1997;13:144-186.
7. Office of Technology Assessment. The implications of cost-effectiveness analysis of medical technology. Washington, DC: US Government Office; 1980.
8. Liberati A, Sheldon T, Banta HD, et al. EUR-ASSESS project subgroup report on methodology. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 1997;13:186-219.
9. NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York. 1995. Review of the research on the effectiveness of health services interventions to reduce variations in health. CRD report 3. York: NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination.
10. NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York. 2000. Evidence from systematic reviews of research relevant to implementing the "wide public health" agenda. York: NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination.
11. Sonnad S, Greenberg D, Rosen A, Neumann P. 2005. Diffusion of published cost-utility analyses in the field of health policy and practice. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 21:399-402.
12. US Preventive Services Task Force. Guide to clinical preventive services. 2nd ed. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins; 1996. (See internet Web site for more up-to-date citations).