Health Technology Assessment: A Review of International Activity and Examples of Approaches With Computed Tomographic Colonography

Journal of the American College of Radiology

Volumn 6, Issue 5, 2009, Pages 343-352

  Husereau, Don ^a   Morrison, Andra ^a   Battista, Renaldo ^b   Goeree, Ron ^c,d  

^a CANADIAN AGENCY FOR DRUGS AND TECHNOLOGIES IN HEALTH   (Canada)

^b UNIVERSITÉ DE MONTRÉAL   (Canada)

^c Programs for Assessment of Technology in Health Research Institute   (Canada)

^d MCMASTER UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

Author keywords

colorectal cancer screening; economic evaluation; evidence based decision making; evidence based medicine; health policy; Health technology assessment; HTA

Indexed keywords

CANCER SCREENING; CLINICAL ASSESSMENT; CLINICAL ASSESSMENT TOOL; CLINICAL RESEARCH; CLINICAL TRIAL; COHORT ANALYSIS; COLONOSCOPY; COLORECTAL CANCER; COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHIC COLONOGRAPHY; COST UTILITY ANALYSIS; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; ECONOMIC EVALUATION; EUROPE; HEALTH CARE ORGANIZATION; HEALTH CARE QUALITY; HEALTH CARE SYSTEM; HEALTH PROGRAM; HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT; HOSPITAL; HUMAN; MEDICAL DECISION MAKING; MEDICAL TECHNOLOGY; METHODOLOGY; MORBIDITY; OCCULT BLOOD TEST; POPULATION BASED CASE CONTROL STUDY; QUALITY ADJUSTED LIFE YEAR; RADIOLOGY; RESOURCE ALLOCATION; REVIEW; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW;

EID: 65249120261     PISSN: 15461440     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jacr.2009.01.014     Document Type: Review

References (71)

1. International Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment. HTA resources. http://inahta.episerverhotell.net/HTA/ Accessed March 25, 2009
2. Battista R.N. Towards a paradigm for technology assessment. In: Peckham M., and Smith R. (Eds). Scientific basis of health services (1996), BMJ Publishing Group, London 11-18
3. Menon M. The internationalization of heath technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 12 (1996) 45-51
4. Jonsson E. Development of health technology assessment in Europe. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 18 (2002) 171-183
5. Jonsson E., and Banta H.D. Management of health technologies: an international view. BMJ 319 (1999) 1293
6. Eisenberg J.M., and Zarin D. Health technology assessment in the United States. Past, present, and future. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 18 (2002) 192-198
7. Hailey D., and Menon D. A short history of INAHTA. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 15 (1999) 236-242
8. Fleurette F., and Banta D. Health technology assessment in France. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 16 (2000) 400-411
9. Orvain J., Xerri B., and Matillon Y. Overview of health technology assessment in France. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 20 (2004) 25-34
10. Sanders J.M. Challenges, choices and Canada. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 18 (2002) 199-202
11. Battista R.N., Banta H.D., Jonnson E., Hodge M., and Gelband H. Lessons from the eight countries. Health Policy 30 (1994) 397-421
12. Granados A. Health technology assessment in Catalonia. In: Shermer J., and Schersten T. (Eds). Technology assessment in health care: from theory to practice (1995) 18-26
13. Carlsson P., Johsson E., Werko L., and Banta D. Health technology assessment in Sweden. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 16 (2000) 560-565
14. Carlsson P. Health technology assessment and priority setting for health policy in Sweden. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 20 (2004) 44-54
15. Bos M. Health technology assessment in the Netherlands. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 16 (2000) 485-519
16. Oortwijn W.J., Vondeling H., van Barneveld T., van Vugt C., and Bouter L.M. Priority setting for health technology assessment in the Netherlands: principles and practice. Health Policy 62 3 (2002) 227-242
17. Kohli H.S. Health technology assessment in Scotland. Nat Med J India 16 (2003) 275-276
18. Stevens A., and Milne R. Health technology assessment in England and Wales. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 20 (2004) 11-24
19. Walley T. Health technology assessment in England: assessment and appraisal. Med J Aust 187 (2007) 283-285
20. Woolf S.H., and Henshall C. Health technology assessment in the United Kingdom. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 16 (2000) 591-625
21. Taylor R. National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) HTA rhyme or reason?. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 18 (2002) 166-170
22. Banta D. The development of health technology assessment. Health Policy 63 (2003) 121-132
23. Schwarzer S.U., and Siebert U. A systematic framework for comparing methods, procedures, and impact across HTA agencies. Value Health 6 suppl (2008) 3
24. Novaes H. From production to evaluation of health systems technologies: challenges for the 21st century. Rev Saude Publica 40 (2006) 133-140
25. Park S.H., and Lee S.M. Evidence-based decision-making and health technology assessment in South Korea. Value Health 11 suppl (2008) S163-S164
26. Kachieng'a M.O., and Boonzaier D.A. Health care technology assessment-the South African health care system in transition. S Afr Med J 89 (1999) 149-155
27. Gulasci L. The time for cost-effectiveness in the new European Union member states: the development and role of health economics and technology assessment in the mirror of the Hungarian experience. Eur J Health Econ 8 (2007) 83-88
28. Health Technology Assessment International. Home page. http://www.htai.org/index.php?id=121 Accessed March 25, 2009
29. Husereau D., Nowlan L., and Clifford T. The Health Technology Analysis Exchange-a new Canadian HTA network. Presented at (2008), 5th Annual Meeting of Health Technology Assessment International, Montreal, Canada
30. Cicchetti A., Francesconi A., Guizzetti G., Lago P., Maccarini E.M., and Zambianchi L. The development of hospital based HTA: the experience of five Italian hospitals. Handb Health Technol Assess 3 (2006) 51
31. McGregor M. HTA use in a Canadian hospital system. Ital J Public Health 2 (2005) 92
32. Sculpher M.J., and Drummond M.F. Analysis sans frontières: can we ever make economic evaluations generalisable across jurisdictions?. Pharmacoeconomics 24 (2006) 1087-1099
33. Barbieri M, Hawkins N, Sculpher M. Who does the numbers? The role of third-party technology assessment to inform health systems' decision-making about the funding of health technologies. Value Health. In press.
34. Drummond M.F., Schwartz J.S., Jonsson B., Luce B.R., Neumann P.J., Siebert U., et al. Key principles for the improved conduct of health technology assessments for resource allocation decisions. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 24 (2008) 244-258
35. Battista R., and Hodge M. The evolving paradigm of health technology assessment: reflections for the millennium. CMAJ 160 (1999) 1464-1467
36. Neumann P.J., and Sullivan S.D. Economic evaluation in the US: what is the missing link?. Pharmacoeconomics 24 (2006) 1163-1168
37. Noorani H.Z., Husereau D.R., Boudreau R., and Skidmore B. Priority setting for health technology assessments: a systematic review of current practical approaches. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 23 (2007) 310-315
38. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Medicare coverage database: factors CMS considers in referring topics to the Medicare Evidence Development and Coverage Advisory Committee. http://www.cms.hhs.gov/mcd/ncpc_view_document.asp?id=10 Accessed March 25, 2009
39. Hailey D. Elements of effectiveness for health technology assessment programs. http://www.inahta.org/upload/HTA_resources/AboutHTA_Elements_of_Effectiveness_for_HTA_Programs.pdf Accessed March 25, 2009
40. Levin L., Goeree R., Sikich N., Jorgensen B., Brouwers M.C., Easty T., et al. Establishing a comprehensive continuum from an evidentiary base to policy development for health technologies: the Ontario experience. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 23 (2007) 299-309
41. Ferner R.E., and McDowell S.E. How NICE may be outflanked. BMJ 332 (2006) 1268-1271
42. Drummond M.F., Iglesias C.P., and Cooper N.J. Systematic reviews and economic evaluations conducted for the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence in the United Kingdom: a game of two halves?. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 24 (2008) 146-150
43. Rotstein D., and Laupacis A. Differences between systematic reviews and health technology assessments: a trade-off between the ideals of scientific rigor and the realities of policy making. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 20 (2004) 177-183
44. Lavis J., Davies H., Gruen R., Walshe K., and Farquhar C. Working within and beyond the Cochrane Collaboration to make systematic reviews more useful to healthcare managers and policy makers. Healthcare Policy 1 (2005) 21-33
45. Sonnenberg F.A., and Beck J.R. Markov models in medical decision making: a practical guide. Med Decis Making 13 (1993) 322-338
46. Glenny A.M., Altman D.G., Song F., Sakarovitch C., Deeks J.J., D'Amico R., et al. Indirect comparisons of competing interventions. Health Technol Assess 9 (2005) 1-134
47. Sculpher M., Fenwick E., and Claxton K. Assessing quality in decision analytic cost-effectiveness models. A suggested framework and example of application. Pharmacoeconomics 17 (2000) 461-477
48. US Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for colorectal cancer: U.S. Preventative Services Task Force recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med 149 (2008) 627-637
49. Ho C., Membe S., Morrison A., Moulton K., Manns B., and Heitman S. Computed tomographic colonography for colorectal cancer detection in average-risk screening population: clinical efficacy and economic evaluation (2008), Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health, Ottawa
50. Pharmacoeconomic guidelines around the world. http://wwwispor.org/PEguidelines/index.asp Accessed March 25, 2009
51. Tarn T.Y., and Smith M.D. Pharmacoeconomic guidelines around the world. ISPOR Connections 10 (2004) 5
52. HTAi Policy Forum. Working Group on Surrogate Outcomes: call for expressions of interest and comment. http://www.htai.org/index.php?id=265&type=0&jumpurl=fileadmin%2FHTAi_Files%2FPolicy_Forum_Public%2FSurrogates_Working_Group%2FSurrogateOutcomesFlyerAndTOR.pdf&juSecure=1&locationData=265%3Att_content%3A601&juHash=6f582564a9
53. WP4-common core HTA: WP4 description (excerpt from the Grant Agreement with the European Commission). http://www.eunethta.net/Work_Packages/WP_4/ Accessed March 25, 2009
54. Busse R., Orvain J., Velasco M., Perleth M., Drummond M., Gurtner F., et al. Best practices in undertaking and reporting health technology assessments. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 18 (2002) 361-422
55. Battista R.N. Expanding the scientific basis of health technology assessment: a research agenda for the next decade. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 22 (2006) 275-280
56. Fulop N., Allen P., Clarke A., and Black N. From health technology assessment to research on the organisation and delivery of health services: addressing the balance. Health Policy 63 (2003) 155-165
57. Watt A., Cameron A., Sturn L., Lathlean T., Babidge W., Blamey S., et al. Rapid reviews versus full systematic reviews: an inventory of current methods and practice in health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 24 (2008) 133-139
58. McGregor M., and Brophy J.M. End-user involvement in health technology assessment (HTA) development: a way to increase impact. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 21 (2005) 263-267
59. Lavis J.N. Moving forward on both systematic reviews and deliberative processes. Healthcare Policy 1 (2006) 59-63
60. Lomas J., Culyer T., McCutcheon C., McAuley L., and Law S. Conceptualizing and combining evidence for health system guidance (2005), Canadian Health Services Research Foundation, Ottawa
61. Hailey D., and Nordwall M. Survey on the involvement of consumers in health technology assessment programs. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 22 (2006) 497-499
62. Atkins D., Eccles M., Flottorp S., Guyatt G., Henry D., Hills S., et al., GRADE Working Group. Systems for grading the quality of evidence and the strength of recommendations I: critical appraisal of existing approaches. BMC Health Serv Res 4 (2004) 38
63. Methodology. ICER integrated evidence rating (2008), Institute for Clinical and Economic Review, Boston
64. Daniels N. Accountability for reasonableness. BMJ 321 (2000) 1300-1301
65. Daniels N., and Sabin J.E. Accountability for reasonableness: an update. BMJ 337 (2008) a1850
66. Dhalla I., and Laupacis A. Moving from opacity to transparency in pharmaceutical policy. CMAJ. http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/full/178/4/428 Accessed March 25, 2009
67. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. About USPSTF: the new U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. http://www.ahrq.gov/clinical/uspstfab.htm
68. Whitlock E.P., Lin J.S., Liles E., Beil T.L., Fu R., and O'Connor E. Screening for colorectal cancer: an updated systematic review (Evidence Synthesis No. 65, Part 1) (2008), Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Rockville, Md
69. Institute for Clinical and Economic Review. About ICER. http://www.icer-review.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2&Itemid=28 Accessed March 25, 2009
70. Washington State Health Care Authority/Computed tomographic colonography: findings and coverage decisions. http://www.hta.hca.wa.gov/documents/decision_finding_vc_final_090308.pdf Accessed March 25, 2009
71. Johnson C., Chen M., Toledano A., Heiken J., Dachman A., Kuo M., et al. Accuracy of CT colonography for detection of large adenomas and cancers. N Engl J Med 359 (2008) 1207-1217