Health technology assessment: What is it? Current status and perspectives in the field of electrophysiology

Europace

Volumn 13, Issue SUPPL. 2, 2011, Pages

  Fattore, Giovanni ^a   Maniadakis, Nikos ^b   Mantovani, Lorenzo G ^c   Boriani, Giuseppe ^d  

^a BOCCONI UNIVERSITY   (Italy)

^b NATIONAL SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH   (Greece)

^c UNIVERSITY OF NAPLES FEDERICO II   (Italy)

^d UNIVERSITY OF BOLOGNA   (Italy)

Author keywords

Comparative effectiveness; Cost effectiveness; Defibrillators; Health economics; Health technology assessment; Policy

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CARDIAC RESYNCHRONIZATION THERAPY; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; ECONOMIC ASPECT; ELECTROPHYSIOLOGY; EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE; GOVERNMENT; HEALTH CARE POLICY; HEALTH CARE SYSTEM; HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT; HUMAN; PRIORITY JOURNAL; TECHNOLOGY;

BIOMEDICAL TECHNOLOGY; ELECTROPHYSIOLOGIC TECHNIQUES, CARDIAC; EUROPE; FORECASTING; TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT, BIOMEDICAL;

EID: 79955634411     PISSN: 10995129     EISSN: 15322092     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/europace/eur083     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. WHO. The World Health Report 2000: Health Systems: Improving Performance. Geneva: WHO; 2000.
2. International Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment. HTA Resources 2009; http://www.inhata.org/HTA.
3. EUR-AsSESS. Introduction to the EU-ASSESS project. Int J Health Technol Assess Health Care 1997;13:133-43.
4. Banta D. The development of health technology assessment. Health Policy 2003; 63:121-32. (Pubitemid 36132298)
5. Schwarzerer R, Siebert U. Methods, procedures, and contextual characteristics of health technology assessment and health policy decision making: comparison of health technology assessment agencies in Germany, United Kingdom, France and Sweden. Int J Health Technol Assess Health Care 2009;25:305-14.
6. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. The OECD Health Project, Health Technology and Decision Making. Paris: OECD; 2005.
7. Gray J. Evidence Based Health Care. New York: Churchill Livingston; 1997.
8. Mossialos E, Dixon A, Figueras J, Kutzin J. Funding Health Care: Options for Europe. Buckingham: Open University Press; 2002.
9. OECD. Health at a Glance: Europe 2010. Paris: OECD Publishing; 2010. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/health-glance-2010-en.
10. Fattore G, Torbica A. Economic evaluation in health care: the point of view of informed physicians. Value Health 2006;9:157-67.
11. Torbica A, Fattore G. Understanding the impact of economic evidence on clinical decision making: a discrete choice experiment in cardiology. Soc Sci Med 2010;70: 1536-43.
12. Hoffmann C, Graf von Schulemburg MJ, on behalf of the Euromet group. The infiuence of economic evaluation studies on decision making: a European survey. Health Policy 2000;51:179-92. (Pubitemid 30336269)
13. Niessen LW, Grijseels EWM, Rutten FFH. The evidence-based approach in health policy and health care delivery. Social Science & Medicine 2000;51:859-69. (Pubitemid 30326786)
14. Davies HTP, Nutley SM, Smith PC. Editorial: what worksfi The role of evidence in public sector policy and practice. Public Money Manag 1999;19:3-5.
15. Sanderson I. Evaluation, policy learning and evidence-based policy making. Public Admin 2002;80:1-22. (Pubitemid 34209785)
16. Final Conclusions and Recommendations of the High Level Pharmaceutical Forum. http://ec.europa.eu/pharmaforum/docs/final:conclusion-en.pdf (12 November 2010, date last accessed).
17. Higgins JPT, Green S (eds). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.0.2 [Updated September 2009]. The Cochrane Collaboration, 2009. www.cochrane-handbook.org.
18. Tunis SR, Stryer DB, Clancy CM. Practical clincal trials. Increasing the value of clinical research for decision making in clinical health policy. JAMA 2003;290: 1624-32. (Pubitemid 37430387)
19. Glenny AM, Altman DG, Song F, Sakarovitch C, Deeks JJ, D'Amico R et al. Indirect comparisons of competing interventions. Health Technol Assess 2005;9.
20. Lumley T. Network meta-analysis for indirect treatment comparisons. Stat Med 2002;21:2313-24.
21. Weinstein MC, Stason WB. Foundations of cost-effectiveness analysis for health and medical practices. N Engl J Med 1977;296:716-21. (Pubitemid 8066534)
22. Drummond MF, Schulpher MJ, Torrance GW, O'Brien BJ, Stoddart GL. Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2005.
23. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (January 2009). The Guidelines Manual. London: National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence; 2009.
24. Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health. Guidelines for the Economic Evaluation of Health Technologies: Canada. 3rd ed. Ottawa: Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health; 2006.
25. Fulop N, Allen P, Clarke A, Black N. From health technology assessment to research on the organization and delivery of health services: addressing the balance. Health Policy 2003;63:155-65. (Pubitemid 36132301)
26. Avorn J. Regulation of devices. Lessons can be learnt from drug regulation. Br Med J 2010;341:947-8.
27. Taylor RS, Iglesias CP. Assessing clinical and cost-effectiveness of medical devices and drugs: are they that different. Value Health 2009;12:404-6.
28. Dhruva SS, Bero LA, Redberg RF. Strength of study evidence examined by the FDA in premarket approval of cardiovascular devices. JAMA 2009;302: 2679-85.
29. Maisel WH. Medical device regulation: an introduction for the practicing physician. Ann Intern Med 2004;140:296-302. (Pubitemid 38200536)
30. Drummond MF, Griffin A, Tarricone R. Economic evaluation for devices and drugs - same or differentfi? Value Health 2009;12:402-6.