Health technology assessment in surgery

Scandinavian Journal of Surgery

Volumn 101, Issue 2, 2012, Pages 132-137

  Bergqvist, David ^a   Rosen M ^b  

^a UPPSALA UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (Sweden)

^b KAROLINSKA INSTITUTE   (Sweden)

Author keywords

EVAR; GRADE; Health technology assessment; HTA; Learning curve; Population based registry; Randomized controlled trial; Surgery

Indexed keywords

EID: 84863736799     PISSN: 14574969     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/145749691210100210     Document Type: Review

References (32)

1. Eunet HTA: EunetHTA 2009 http://wwweunethtanet/Public/ HTA/
2. Smith GC, Pell JP: Parachute use to prevent death and major trauma related to gravitational challenge: systematic review of randomised controlled trials. BMJ 2003;327(7429):1459-1461. PMCID: 300808
3. Troëng T: nationella kvalitetsregistrer för kärlkirurgi. Swedvasc's Årsrapport för 2011 för 2010 års verksamhet. Swedvasc. 2011
4. Ten Have H: Ethical perspectives on health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2004;20(1):71-76
5. Hofmann B: Toward a procedure for integrating moral issues in health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2005;21(3):312-318
6. Bergqvist D: Introduction of new technology: the surgical point of view. Scand J Surg 2009;98(1):3-7
7. Djulbegovic B: Acknowledgment of uncertainty: a fundamental means to ensure scientific and ethical validity in clinical research. Curr oncol Rep 2001;3(5):389-395
8. European Carotid Surgery Trialists' Collaborative Group. MRC European Carotid Surgery Trial: interim results for symptomatic patients with severe (70-99%) or with mild (0-29%) carotid stenosis. Lancet 1991;337(8752):1235-1243
9. The EC/IC Bypass Study Group. Failure of extracranial-intracranial arterial bypass to reduce the risk of ischemic stroke: Results of an international randomized trial. n Engl J Med 1985;313(19):1191-1200
10. Lilford RJ, Braunholtz DA, Greenhalgh R, Edwards SJ: Trials and fast changing technologies: the case for tracker studies. Bmj 2000;320(7226):43-46
11. van der Linden w: Pitfalls in randomized surgical trials. Surgery 1980;87(3):258-262
12. Lexchin J, Bero LA, Djulbegovic B, Clark O: Pharmaceutical industry sponsorship and research outcome and quality: systematic review. BMJ 2003;326(7400):1167-1170. PMCID: 156458.
13. Bekelman JE, Li y, Gross CP: Scope and impact of financial conflicts of interest in biomedical research: a systematic review. JAMA 2003;289(4):454-465
14. Egger M, Smith GD: Bias in location and selection of studies. BMJ 1998;316(7124):61-66. PMCID: 2665334
15. Rerkasem K, Rothwell PM: Meta-analysis of small randomized controlled trials in surgery may be unreliable. Br J Surg 2010; 97(4):466-469
16. Melander H, Ahlqvist-Rastad J, Meijer G, Beermann B: Evidence b(i)ased medicine-selective reporting from studies sponsored by pharmaceutical industry: review of studies in new drug applications. BMJ 2003;326(7400):1171-1173. PMCID: 156459
17. Golder S, Loke yK, Bland M: Meta-analyses of adverse effects data derived from randomised controlled trials as compared to observational studies: methodological overview. PLoS Med 2011;8(5):e1001026. PMCID: 3086872
18. Henry DA, Carless PA, Moxey AJ, o'Connell D, Stokes BJ, McClelland B, et al: Anti-fibrinolytic use for minimising perioperative allogeneic blood transfusion. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2007(4):CD001886
19. Rosen M: The aprotinin saga and the risks of conducting metaanalyses on small randomised controlled trials-a critique of a Cochrane review. BMC Health Serv Res. 2009;9:34. PMCID: 2657782
20. Fergusson DA, Hebert PC, Mazer CD, et al: A comparison of aprotinin and lysine analogues in high-risk cardiac surgery. n Engl J Med 2008; 358(22):2319-2331
21. Mani K, Lees T, Beiles B, et al: Treatment of abdominal aortic aneurysm in nine countries 2005-2009: a Vascunet report. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 2011; 42(5):598-607
22. Rosén M: Guldgruvan i hälso-och sjukvården. Översyn av de nationella kvalitetsregistren. Förslag till gemensam satsning 2011-2015: SKL Stockholm; 2010
23. Bergqvist D, Bjorck M, Sawe J, Troeng T: Randomized trials or population-based registries. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 2007; 34(3):253-256
24. Guyatt GH, oxman AD, Vist GE, et al: GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ 2008;336(7650):924-926. PMCID: 2335261
25. www.sbu.se
26. http://www.library.nhs.uk/duets/
27. Ergina PL, Cook JA, Blazeby JM, et al: Challenges in evaluating surgical innovation. Lancet 2009;374(9695):1097-1104. PMCID: 2855679
28. McCulloch P, Altman DG, Campbell wB, et al: no surgical innovation without evaluation: the IDEAL recommendations. Lancet. 2009;374(9695):1105-1112
29. Barkun JS, Aronson JK, Feldman LS, et al: Evaluation and stages of surgical innovations. Lancet 2009;374(9695):1089-1096
30. Altman DG: Better reporting of randomised controlled trials: the ConSoRT statement. BMJ 1996;313(7057):570-157. PMCID: 2352018
31. von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, Pocock SJ, Gotzsche PC, Vandenbroucke JP: The Strengthening the Reporting of observational Studies in Epidemiology (STRoBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. Ann Intern Med 2007;147(8):573-577
32. Moher D, Schulz KF, Altman D: The ConSoRT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomized trials. JAMA 2001;285(15):1987-1991.