Evidence-informed evidence-making

Journal of Health Services Research and Policy

Volumn 13, Issue 3, 2008, Pages 167-173

  Chalkidou, Kalipso ^a   Walley, Tom ^b,c   Culyer, Anthony ^c,d   Littlejohns, Peter ^e   Hoy, Andrew ^e  

^a JOHNS HOPKINS BLOOMBERG SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF LIVERPOOL   (United Kingdom)

^c UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

^d UNIVERSITY OF YORK   (United Kingdom)

^e NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR HEALTH AND CARE EXCELLENCE   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CLINICAL RESEARCH; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; EVIDENCE BASED PRACTICE; FUNDING; GOOD CLINICAL PRACTICE; HEALTH CARE DELIVERY; HEALTH CARE FINANCING; HEALTH CARE ORGANIZATION; HEALTH CARE QUALITY; MEDICAL DECISION MAKING; MEDICAL RESEARCH; MEDICAL TECHNOLOGY; METHODOLOGY; NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITY CONTROL; REVIEW;

ACADEMIES AND INSTITUTES; BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH; COOPERATIVE BEHAVIOR; DECISION MAKING, ORGANIZATIONAL; EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE; GREAT BRITAIN; HEALTH CARE SECTOR; HEALTH PRIORITIES; HEALTH SERVICES RESEARCH; HUMANS; INTERINSTITUTIONAL RELATIONS; STATE MEDICINE; TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT, BIOMEDICAL;

EID: 47749119940     PISSN: 13558196     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1258/jhsrp.2008.008027     Document Type: Review

References (42)

1. Littlejohns P, Kelly M. The changing face of NICE: the same but different. Lancet 2005;366:791-4
2. Chalkidou K, Hoy A, Littlejohns P. Making a decision to wait for more evidence: when the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence recommends a technology only in the context of research. J R Soc Med 2007;100:453-60
3. Tunis SR, Stryer DB, Clancy CM. Practical clinical trials: increasing the value of clinical research for decision making in clinical and health policy. JAMA 2003;290:1624-32
4. Guillou PJ, Quirke P, Thorpe H, et al. Short-term endpoints of conventional versus laparoscopic-assisted surgery in patients with colorectal cancer (MRC CLASICC trial): multicentre, randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2005; 365:1718-26
5. Jayne DG, Guillou PJ, Thorpe H, et al. Randomized trial of laparoscopic-assisted resection of colorectal carcinoma: 3-year results of the UK MRC CLASICC Trial Group. J Clin Oncol 2007;25:3061-8
6. Chilcott J, Brennan A, Booth A, Karnon J, Tappenden P. The role of modelling in prioritising and planning clinical trials. Health Technol Assess 2003;7:iii, 1-125
7. Committee on Priorities for Assessment and Reassessment of Health Care Technologies. Institute of Medicine: Setting Priorities for Health Technology Assessment. A Model Process. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1992
8. Oortwijn W. First Things First: Priority Setting for Health Technology Assessment. Leiden, The Netherlands: Organisation for Applied Scientific Research (TNO) Prevention and Health, 2000
9. Weiss C. The many meanings of research utilization. Publ Admin Rev 1979;39:426-31
10. Brown P, Brunnhuber K, Chalkidou K, et al. How to formulate research recommendations. BMJ 2006;333:804-6
11. NICE. The Guidelines Manual: 2007. London: National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, 2007
12. NICE. Interventional Procedures programme methods guide. London: National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, 2007
13. NICE. Update to the Methods of Technology Appraisal - draft. London: National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, 2007
14. Laurance J. Drug giants warned: Tell the truth on medicines. The Independent, 27 February 2008
15. Yank V, Rennie D, Bero LA. Financial ties and concordance between results and conclusions in meta-analyses: retrospective cohort study. BMJ 2007;335:1202-5
16. Raftery J, Clegg A, Jones J, Tan SC, Lotery A. Ranibizumab (Lucentis) versus bevacizumab (Avastin): modelling cost effectiveness. Br J Ophthalmol 2007;91:1244-6
17. Chalmers I. Addressing uncertainties about the effects of treatments offered to NHS patients: whose responsibility? J R Soc Med 2007;100:440-1
18. Goeree R, Levin L. Building bridges between academic research and policy formulation: the PRUFE framework - an integral part of Ontario's evidence-based HTPA process. Pharmacoeconomics 2006;24:1143-56
19. Kamerow D. Paying for promising but unproven technologies. BMJ 2007;335:965
20. Tunis SR, Pearson SD. Coverage options for promising technologies: Medicare's 'coverage with evidence development'. Health Aff (Millwood) 2006;25:1218-30
21. House of Commons Health Committee. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence; First Report of Session 2007-08. London: House of Commons, 2008
22. Pearson SD, Miller FG, Emanuel EJ. Medicare's requirement for research participation as a condition of coverage: is it ethical? JAMA 2006;296:988-91
23. Citizens' Council. When is it appropriate for NICE to recommend a technology or intervention only in the context of research? London: National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, 2007
24. Moss SM, Gray A, Legood R, Henstock E. Evaluation of HPV/LBC Cervical Screening Pilot Studies. First Report to the Department of Health on Evaluation of LBC. London: Institute of Cancer Research, 2003
25. NICE. Liquid based cytology for cervical screening - review (TA069). London: NICE, 2003
26. NICE. Photodynamic therapy for age related macular degeneration. London: National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, 2003
27. National Institute for Health Research. Best research for best health - implementation plan. London: Comprehensive Research Network, 2007
28. GMC. Good Medical Practice. London: General Medical Council, 2006
29. Culyer. Supporting research and development in the NHS (The Culyer Report). London: Department of Health, 1990
30. Cooksey D. A review of health research funding. London: HM Treasury, 2006
31. UKCRC. UK Health Research Analysis. London: UK Clinical research Collaboration, 2006
32. Clarke L, Clarke M, Clarke T. How useful are Cochrane reviews in identifying research needs? J Health Serv Res Policy 2007;12:101-3
33. Garattini S, Bertele V. How can we regulate medicines better? BMJ 2007;335:803-5
34. Claxton K, Eggington S, Ginnelly L, et al. A Pilot Study of Value of Information Analysis to Support Research Recommendations for the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. York: Centre for Health Economics, 2005
35. NICE. A Guide to the Methods of Technology Appraisal. London: National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, 2004
36. Hanney S, Buxton C, Coulson D, Raftery J. An assessment of the impact of the NHS Health Technology Assessment Programme. Health Technol Assess 2007;11:1-180
37. Tunis SR. A clinical research strategy to support shared decision making. Health Aff (Millwood) 2005;24:180-4
38. 2007 Pre-Budget Report and Comprehensive Spending Review statement to the House of Commons, delivered by the Rt Hon Alistair Darling MP, Chancellor of the Exchequer. See http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/pbr_csr/ pbr_csr07_speech.cfm
39. Science spending will 'boost health research'. The Guardian, 10 October 2007
40. Darzi A. Our NHS, our future: NHS next stage review - interim report. London: Department of Health, 2007
41. Congressional Budget Office. Research on the Comparative Effectiveness of Medical Treatments: Issues and Options for an Expanded Federal Role. Washington, DC: CBO, 2007
42. Wilensky GR.Developingacenterforcomparative effectiveness information. Health Aff (Millwood) 2006;25:w572-85