Assessing the clinical and cost-effectiveness of medical devices and drugs: Are they that different?

Value in Health

Volumn 12, Issue 4, 2009, Pages 404-406

  Taylor, Rod S ^a   Iglesias, Cynthia P ^b  

^a PENINSULA MEDICAL SCHOOL   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF YORK   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BIOMEDICAL TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT; CLINICAL EFFECTIVENESS; CONCEPT ANALYSIS; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; DEVICE; DRUG COST; EQUIPMENT DESIGN; HUMAN; LICENSING; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITY CONTROL; REVIEW; SAFETY; TECHNICAL AID; TECHNOLOGY; TREATMENT INDICATION;

COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; DECISION MAKING; EQUIPMENT AND SUPPLIES; GREAT BRITAIN; HEALTH CARE COSTS; HUMANS; PRESCRIPTION DRUGS;

EID: 66249107886     PISSN: 10983015     EISSN: 15244733     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2008.00476_2.x     Document Type: Article

References (14)

1. The European Parliament and the Council of the European Union. Directive 2007/47/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 September 2007. Available from: http://eurlex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2007: 247:0021:0055:EN:PDF [Accessed July 15, 2008 E, Gyrd-Hansen D, Poulsen PB, Horder M. International comparison of the definition and the practical application of health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2005 21 : 89 95.
2. 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.
3. Food and Drug Administration. Device advice: premarket approval. November 2002. Available from: http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/devadvice/pma [Accessed July 15, 2008 WH. Medical device regulation: an introduction for the practicing physician. Ann Intern Med 2004 140 : 296 302.
4. Campbell G. The experience in the FDA's Center for Devices and Radiological Health with Bayesian strategies. Clin Trials 2005 2 : 359 63, discussion 364 78.
5. Lu G, Ades AE. Combination of direct and indirect evidence in mixed treatment comparisons. Stat Med 2004 23 : 3105 24.
6. Ades AE, Sculpher M, Sutton A, et al. Bayesian methods for evidence synthesis in cost-effectiveness analysis. Pharmacoeconomics 2006 24 : 1 19. (Pubitemid 43197227)
7. Cook JA, Ramsay CR, Fayers P. Using the literature to quantify the learning curve: a case study. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2007 23 : 255 60.
8. Ramsay CR, Grant AM, Wallace SA, et al. Statistical assessment of the learning curves of health technologies. Health Technol Assess 2001 5 : 1 79.
9. Taylor RS, Buscher E, Van Buyten J-P. Systematic review and meta-analysis of the effectiveness of spinal cord stimulation in the management of failed back surgery syndrome. Spine 2005 30 : 152 60.
10. Maisel WH. Semper fidelis - consumer protection for patients with implanted medical devices. N Engl J Med 2008 358 : 985 7.
11. NICE. Updated guide to the methods of technology appraisal - June 2008. Available from: http://www.nice.org.uk/aboutnice/howwework/devnicetech/ technologyappraisalprocessguides/guidetothemethodsoftechnologyappraisal.jsp? domedia=1&mid=B52851A3-19B9-E0B5-D48284D172BD8459 [Accessed July 15, 2008 ].
12. CADTH. Guidelines for the economic evaluation of health technologies: canada - methods and guidelines, March 2006. Available from: http://cadth.ca/media/pdf/186-EconomicGuidelines-e.pdf [Accessed July 15, 2008 ].
13. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. National coverage determinations with data collection as a condition of coverage: coverage with evidence development; July 12, 2006. Available from: [Accessed July 15, 2008 ].
14. NICE. Appraisal of spinal cord stimulation for chronic pain of neuropathic or ischaemic origin. Available from: http://www.nice.org.uk/ guidance/index.jsp?action=byID&o=11739 [Accessed July 15, 2008 ].