Health Technology Assessment in the UK

The Lancet

Volumn 382, Issue 9900, 2013, Pages 1278-1285

  Raftery, James ^a   Powell, John ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHAMPTON   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BIOMEDICAL TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT; DIAGNOSIS; EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE; FUNDING; HEALTH CARE SYSTEM; HUMAN; MEDICAL DEVICE; MENTAL HEALTH RESEARCH; NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REVIEW; SCREENING; SURGERY; UNITED KINGDOM; ABDOMINAL AORTA ANEURYSM; DEVICES; ECONOMICS; ENDOVASCULAR SURGERY; FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT; HEALTH CARE QUALITY; HEALTH SERVICES RESEARCH; INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION; MASS COMMUNICATION; MEDICAL TECHNOLOGY; MENTAL HEALTH; ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT; PATIENT PARTICIPATION; PUBLIC OPINION; STANDARD; STENT;

AORTIC ANEURYSM, ABDOMINAL; BIOMEDICAL TECHNOLOGY; DIFFUSION OF INNOVATION; ENDOVASCULAR PROCEDURES; EQUIPMENT AND SUPPLIES; EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE; FINANCING, GOVERNMENT; GREAT BRITAIN; HEALTH SERVICES RESEARCH; HUMANS; INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION; MENTAL HEALTH; PATIENT PARTICIPATION; PROGRAM EVALUATION; PUBLIC OPINION; STENTS; TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT, BIOMEDICAL;

EID: 84887376681     PISSN: 01406736     EISSN: 1474547X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(13)61724-9     Document Type: Review

References (59)

1. House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology. Priorities in medical research. Priorities in Medical Research, 1988, HM Stationery Office, London.
2. Department of Health. ‘Priorities in Medical Research’. Government response to the third report of the House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology: 1987–88 session, 1989, HM Stationery Office, London.
3. Department of Health. Advisory Group on Health Technology Assessment. Assessing the effects of health technologies: principles, practice, proposals, 1992, HM Stationery Office, London.
4. Department of Health. Research for health, 1993, HM Stationery Office, London.
5. Cooksey, DS, A review of UK health research funding, 2006, Stationery Office, London.
6. Chalkidou, K, Tunis, SR, Whicher, DM, Fowler, R, Zwarenstein, M, The role for pragmatic randomized controlled trials (PRCTs) in comparative effectiveness research. Clin Trials 9 (2012), 436–446.
7. NICE. Varicose veins in the legs: the diagnosis and management of varicose veins. Clinical guidelines CG168. http://www.nice.org.uk/nicemedia/live/14226/64566/64566.pdf, July, 2013 (accessed May 23, 2013).
8. Michaels, JA, Campbell, WB, Brazier, JE, et al. Randomised clinical trial, observational study and assessment of cost-effectiveness of the treatment of varicose veins (REACTIV trial). Health Technol Assess 10 (2006), 1–196.
9. Turner, S, Wright, D, Maeso, R, Cook, A, Milne, R, Publication rate for funded studies from a major UK health research funder: a cohort study. BMJ Open, 3, 2013, e002521.
10. Song, F, Parekh, S, Hooper, L, et al. Dissemination and publication of research findings: an updated review of related biases. Health Technol Assess, 14, 2010, 1193.
11. HTA programme. HTA Commissioning Board Funding Outcomes. http://www.hta.ac.uk/funding/standardcalls/outcomes.shtml (accessed May 18, 2013).
12. Laine, C, Horton, R, DeAngelis, CD, et al. Clinical trial registration: looking back and moving ahead. Lancet 369 (2007), 1909–1911.
13. Chan, AW, Bias, spin, and misreporting: time for full access to trial protocols and results. PLoS Med, 5, 2008, e230.
14. Oliver, S, Milne, R, Bradburn, J, et al. Involving consumers in a needs-led research programme: a pilot project. Health Expect 4 (2001), 18–28.
15. Cartwright, N, A philosopher's view of the long road from RCTs to effectiveness. Lancet 377 (2011), 1400–1401.
16. Grol, R, Grimshaw, J, From best evidence to best practice: effective implementation of change in patients' care. Lancet 362 (2003), 1225–1230.
17. Chalmers, I, Glasziou, P, Avoidable waste in the production and reporting of research evidence. Lancet 374 (2009), 86–89.
18. Hanney, S, Buxton, M, Green, C, Coulson, D, Raftery, J, An assessment of the impact of the NHS Health Technology Assessment Programme. Health Technol Assess 11 (2007), 1–180.
19. Buxton, M, Hanney, S, Evaluating the NHS research and development programme: will the programme give value for money?. J R Soc Med 91 (1998), 2–6.
20. Buxton, M, Hanney, S, Jones, T, Estimating the economic value to societies of the impact of health research: a critical review. Bull World Health Organ 82 (2004), 733–739.
21. Waymont, B, Lynch, TH, Dunn, J, Bathers, S, Wallace, DM, Treatment preferences of urologists in Great Britain and Ireland in the management of prostate cancer. Br J Urol 71 (1993), 577–582.
22. Hamdy, FC, Experiences from ProtecT: lessons I have learnt. http://www.methodologyhubs.mrc.ac.uk/PDF/Hamdy%20-%20ProtecT.pdf (accessed May 19, 2013).
23. Chamberlain, J, Melia, J, Moss, S, Brown, J, The diagnosis, management, treatment and costs of prostate cancer in England and Wales. Health Technol Assess 1 (1997), 1–53.
24. Selley, S, Donovan, J, Faulkner, A, Coast, J, Gillatt, D, Diagnosis, management and screening of early localised prostate cancer. Health Technol Assess 1 (1997), 1–96.
25. Winyard, G, Population Screening for Prostate Cancer EL(97)12, 1997, NHS Executive, Leeds.
26. Donovan, J, Hamdy, F, Neal, D, et al., for the ProtecT Study Group. Prostate Testing for Cancer and Treatment (ProtecT) feasibility study. Health Technol Assess 7 (2003), 1–88.
27. Burford, D, Kirby, M, Austoker, J, Prostate Cancer Risk Management Programme information for primary care; PSA testing in asymptomatic men. http://www.cancerscreening.nhs.uk/prostate/pcrmp02.pdf (accessed May 23, 2013).
28. Shilling, V, Williamson, PR, Hickey, H, Sowden, E, Smyth, RL, Young, B, Processes in recruitment to randomised controlled trials of medicines for children (RECRUIT): a qualitative study. Health Technol Assess 15 (2011), 1–116.
29. Chakravarthy, U, Harding, SP, Rogers, CA, et al., for the IVAN Study Investigators. Ranibizumab versus bevacizumab to treat neovascular age-related macular degeneration: one-year findings from the IVAN randomized trial. Ophthalmology 119 (2012), 1399–1411.
30. Godlee, F, Avastin versus Lucentis. BMJ, 344, 2012, e3162.
31. Hawkes, N, Primary care trusts reverse advice to ophthalmologists to use cheaper drug for wet age related macular degeneration. BMJ, 345, 2012, e5161.
32. NICE. Ranibizumab for treating diabetic macular oedema (rapid review of technology appraisal guidance 237): TA274, 2013, NICE, London.
33. CRASH-2 trial collaborators. Effects of tranexamic acid on death, vascular occlusive events, and blood transfusion in trauma patients with significant haemorrhage (CRASH-2): a randomised, placebo-controlled trial. Lancet 376 (2010), 23–32.
34. CRASH-2 collaborators. The importance of early treatment with tranexamic acid in bleeding trauma patients: an exploratory analysis of the CRASH-2 randomised controlled trial. Lancet 377 (2011), 1096–1101.
35. Henry, DA, Moxey, AJ, Carless, PA, et al. Anti-fibrinolytic use for minimising perioperative allogeneic blood transfusion. Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 1, 2001 CD001886.
36. Cook, JA, The challenges faced in the design, conduct and analysis of surgical randomised controlled trials. Trials, 10, 2009, 9.
37. Mowatt, G, Bower, DJ, Brebner, JA, Cairns, JA, Grant, AM, McKee, L, When and how to assess fast-changing technologies: a comparative study of medical applications of four generic technologies. Health Technol Assess 1 (1997), 1–149.
38. Drury, D, Michaels, JA, Jones, L, Ayiku, L, Systematic review of recent evidence for the safety and efficacy of elective endovascular repair in the management of infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm. Br J Surg 92 (2005), 937–946.
39. Lederle, FA, Kane, RL, MacDonald, R, Wilt, TJ, Systematic review: repair of unruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm. Ann Intern Med 146 (2007), 735–741.
40. Greenhalgh, RM, Brown, LC, Powell, JT, Thompson, SG, Epstein, D, Sculpher, MJ, for the United Kingdom EVAR Trial Investigators. Endovascular versus open repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm. N Engl J Med 362 (2010), 1863–1871.
41. Greenhalgh, RM, Brown, LC, Powell, JT, Thompson, SG, Epstein, D, the United Kingdom EVAR Trial Investigators. Endovascular repair of aortic aneurysm in patients physically ineligible for open repair. N Engl J Med 362 (2010), 1872–1880.
42. NICE. Endovascular stent–grafts for the treatment of abdominal aortic aneurysms. TA167, 2009, NICE, London.
43. Peek, GJ, Elbourne, D, Mugford, M, et al. Randomised controlled trial and parallel economic evaluation of conventional ventilatory support versus extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for severe adult respiratory failure (CESAR). Health Technol Assess 14 (2010), 1–46.
44. Peek, GJ, Mugford, M, Tiruvoipati, R, et al., for the CESAR trial collaboration. Efficacy and economic assessment of conventional ventilatory support versus extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for severe adult respiratory failure (CESAR): a multicentre randomised controlled trial. Lancet 374 (2009), 1351–1363.
45. Peveller, R, Kendrick, T, Buxton, M, RCT to compare the cost effectiveness of tricyclic antidepressants, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors and lofepramine. Health Technol Assess 9 (2005), 1–134.
46. Lewis, SW, Davies, L, Jones, PB, et al. Randomised controlled trials of conventional antipsychotic versus new atypical drugs, and new atypical drugs versus clozapine, in people with schizophrenia responding poorly to, or intolerant of, current drug treatment. Health Technol Assess 10 (2006), 1–165.
47. Wiles, N, Thomas, L, Abel, A, et al. Cognitive behavioural therapy as an adjunct to pharmacotherapy for primary care based patients with treatment resistant depression: results of the CoBalT randomised controlled trial. Lancet 381 (2013), 375–384.
48. Epps, H, Ginnelly, L, Utley, M, et al. Is hydrotherapy cost-effective? A randomised controlled trial of combined hydrotherapy programmes compared with physiotherapy land techniques in children with juvenile idiopathic arthritis. Health Technol Assess 9 (2005), 1–59.
49. Cochrane, T, Davey, RC, Matthes Edwards, SM, Randomised controlled trial of the cost-effectiveness of water-based therapy for lower limb osteoarthritis. Health Technol Assess 9 (2005), 1–114.
50. Thomas, KS, Koller, K, Dean, T, et al. A multicentre randomised controlled trial and economic evaluation of ion-exchange water softeners for the treatment of eczema in children: the Softened Water Eczema Trial (SWET). Health Technol Assess 15 (2011), 1–156.
51. Dumville, JC, Worthy, G, Soares, MO, et al., for the VenUS II team. VenUS II: a randomised controlled trial of larval therapy in the management of leg ulcers. Health Technol Assess 13 (2009), 1–182.
52. Dent, L, Raftery, J, Treatment success in pragmatic randomised controlled trials: a review of trials funded by the UK Health Technology Assessment programme. Trials, 12, 2011, 109.
53. Krebs, I, Schmetterer, L, Boltz, A, et al., for the MANTA Research Group. A randomised double-masked trial comparing the visual outcome after treatment with ranibizumab or bevacizumab in patients with neovascular age-related macular degeneration. Br J Ophthalmol 97 (2013), 266–271.
54. ZON-MW, the Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development. Comparison of bevacizumab (Avastin) and ranibizumab (Lucentis) in exudative age-related macular degeneration. http://www.trialregister.nl/trialreg/admin/rctview.asp?TC=1704 (accessed May 24, 2013).
55. HTA programme. The United Kingdom Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation (UK TAVI) Trial. http://www.hta.ac.uk/project/2961.asp (accessed May 23, 2013).
56. Commons Select Committee. Clinical trials. http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/science-and-technology-committee/inquiries/parliament-2010/clinical-trials/ (accessed May 24, 2013).
57. Campbell, MK, Snowdon, C, Francis, D, et al., for the STEPS group. Recruitment to randomised trials: strategies for trial enrollment and participation study. The STEPS study. Health Technol Assess 11 (2007), 1–105.
58. FDA. Guidance for Industry: Adaptive Design Clinical Trials for Drugs and Biologics. Draft Guidance, 2010, Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, MD.
59. Walley, T, Davidson, P, Research funding in a pandemic. Lancet 375 (2010), 1063–1065.