Evidence-based decision-making 3: Health technology assessment

Methods in Molecular Biology

Volumn 1281, Issue , 2015, Pages 417-441

  O’reilly, Daria ^a   Campbell, Kaitryn ^a   Vanstone, Meredith ^a   Bowen, James M ^a   Schwartz, Lisa ^a   Assasi, Nazila ^a   Goeree, Ron ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

Economic evaluation; Evidence based decision making; Health care technology; Health policy; Health technology assessment

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BARE METAL STENT; BIOMEDICAL TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT; CANADA; CORONARY ARTERY BYPASS GRAFT; CORONARY ARTERY RECANALIZATION; CORONARY STENT; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; COST UTILITY ANALYSIS; DECISION MAKING; DIABETES MELLITUS; DRUG ELUTING STENT; ECONOMIC EVALUATION; ETHICAL DECISION MAKING; EVIDENCE BASED PRACTICE; HEALTH CARE POLICY; HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT; HEART INFARCTION; HUMAN; PERCUTANEOUS CORONARY INTERVENTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITY OF LIFE; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (TOPIC); RESOURCE ALLOCATION; SOCIAL ASPECT; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW (TOPIC); ECONOMICS; ETHICS; MEDICAL TECHNOLOGY; PROCEDURES;

BIOMEDICAL TECHNOLOGY; COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; DECISION MAKING; DRUG-ELUTING STENTS; HUMANS; TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT, BIOMEDICAL;

EID: 84924288484     PISSN: 10643745     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book Series    
DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4939-2428-8_25     Document Type: Article

References (68)

1. Facey K (2006) INAHTA health technology assessment (HTA) glossary. http://htaglossary.net/HomePage. Accessed 15 Apr 2014
2. Goodman CS (2004) Introduction to health technology assessment. The Lewin Group, Falls Church, VA
3. Banta D (2003) The development of health technology assessment. Health Policy 63(2): 121–132
4. Goodman CS, Snider G, Flynn K (1996) Health care technology assessment in VA, 1996. Management Decision and Research Center, Health Services Research and Development Service, Washington, DC, pp 1–5
5. Jonsson E et al (2002) Summary report of the ECHTA/ECAHI project. European collaboration for health technology assessment/ assessment of health interventions. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 18(2):218–237
6. Poulsen PB (1999) Economic evaluation and the diffusion of health technology. Health technology assessment and diffusion of health technology. Odense University Press, Odense, pp 183–220
7. Franklin C (1993) Basic concepts and fundamental issues in technology assessment. Intensive Care Med 19(2):117–121
8. Husereau D, Boucher M, Noorani H (2010) Priority setting for health technology assessment at CADTH. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 26(3):341–347
9. Noorani HZ et al (2007) Priority setting for health technology assessments: a systematic review of current practical approaches. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 23(3):310–315
10. Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (2003) CADTH: home page [web site]. The Agency, Ottawa, ON
11. Lampe K et al (2009) The HTA core model: a novel method for producing and reporting health technology assessments. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 25(S2):9–20
12. Hofmann BM (2008) Why ethics should be part of health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 24(04):423–429
13. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (2008) Social value judgments: principles for the development of NICE guidance. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, London, pp 1–36
14. Giacomini M et al (2012) Social and ethical values for health technology assessment in Ontario. Health Quality Ontario Social Values and Ethics Evaluation Subcommittee, Toronto, ON
15. INAHTA Ethics Working Group (2005) INAHTA’s working group on handling ethical issues. Final report, Final report, June 2005
16. Niederstadt C, Droste S (2010) Reporting and presenting information retrieval processes: the need for optimizing common practice in health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 26(4):450–457
17. Beauchamp TL, Childress J (2001) Principles of biomedical ethics, 5th edn. Oxford University Press, New York
18. Assasi N et al (2014) Methodological guidance documents for evaluation of ethical considerations in health technology assessment: a systematic review. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res 14(2):203–220
19. Van der Wilt GJ, Reuzel R, Banta HD (2000) The ethics of assessing health technologies. Theor Med Bioeth 21(1):103–115
20. Arellano LE, Willett JM, Borry P (2011) International survey on attitudes toward ethics in health technology assessment: an exploratory study. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 27(1):50–54
21. Saarni SI et al (2008) Ethical analysis to improve decision-making on health technologies. Bull World Health Organ 86(8): 617–623
22. Hofmann B (2005) On value-judgements and ethics in health technology assessment. Poiesis Prax 3(4):277–295
23. Jadad AR, Moher D, Klassen TP (1998) Guides for reading and interpreting systematic reviews: II. How did the authors find the studies and assess their quality? Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 152(8):812–817
24. Goodman CS (2004) Retrieving evidence for HTA, in HTA 101: introduction to health technology assessment. Lewin Group, Falls Church, VA
25. Moher D et al (2003) The inclusion of reports of randomised trials published in languages other than English in systematic reviews. Health Technol Assess 7(41):1–90
26. Savoie I et al (2003) Beyond Medline: reducing bias through extended systematic review search. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 19(1):168–178
27. Royle P, Waugh N (2003) Literature searching for clinical and cost-effectiveness studies used in health technology assessment reports carried out for the National Institute for Clinical Excellence appraisal system. Health Technol Assess 7(34):iii, ix-51
28. Higgins JPT, Green S (2011) Searching for studies. In: Higgins JPT, Green S (eds) Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 510. The Cochrane Collaboration, Oxford
29. U.S. National Library of Medicine (1991) Databases, bibliographic, in MeSH database. US National Library of Medicine, Bethesda, MD
30. Centre for Reviews Dissemination University of York (2009) Systematic reviews: CRD’s guidance for undertaking reviews in health care. The Centre, York
31. Last JM (2001) A dictionary of epidemiology, 4th edn. Oxford University Press, New York
32. McAuley L et al (2000) Does the inclusion of grey literature influence estimates of intervention effectiveness reported in meta-analyses? Lancet 356(9237):1228–1231
33. Institute of Health Economics, Osteba, and AUnEts (2013) Health technology assessment on the Net international: 2013. Institute of Health Economics (IHE), Edmonton, AB
34. Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH) Information Services (2014) Grey matters: a practical deep-web search tool for evidence-based medicine. Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health, Ottawa, ON
35. Library and Archives Canada (2008) Theses Canada portal. Library and Archives Canada, Ottawa, ON
36. Jizba R (2007) Measuring search effectiveness. In: Creighton University (ed) Creighton University Health Sciences Library and Learning Resources Center. Creighton University, Omaha, NE
37. Straus SE et al (2005) Evidence-based medicine: how to practice and teach EBM, 3rd edn. Elsevier, New York
38. Liberati A et al (2009) The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta- analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration. BMJ 339:b2700
39. Heitman E (1998) Ethical issues in technology assessment. Conceptual categories and procedural considerations. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 14(3):544–566
40. Guyatt G, Rennie D (2002) User’s guides to the medical literature, vol 5. American Medical Association Press, Chicago, IL
41. Antman EM et al (1992) A comparison of results of meta-analyses of randomized control trials and recommendations of clinical experts. Treatments for myocardial infarction. JAMA 268(2):240–248
42. Oxman AD, Guyatt GH (1993) The science of reviewing research. Ann N Y Acad Sci 703:125–133, discussion 133-4
43. Higgins JPT, Green S (2011) Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. The Cochrane Collaboration, Oxford
44. Coburn D (2007) Managing decision making under uncertainty: perspectives from a central administrator. In: Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development (ed) OECD Health Project. Health technologies and decision making. Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development, Paris, pp 119–130
45. Goeree R, Levin L (2006) Building bridges between academic research and policy formulation: the PRUFE framework – an integral part of Ontario’s evidence-based HTPA process. Pharmacoeconomics 24(11):1143–1156
46. McIsaac ML, Goeree R, Brophy JM (2007) Primary data collection in health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 23(1):24–29
47. Tunis SR, Stryer DB, Clancy CM (2003) Practical clinical trials: increasing the value of clinical research for decision making in clinical and health policy. JAMA 290(12):1624–1632
48. Lilford RJ et al (2001) Issues in methodological research: perspectives from researchers and commissioners. Health Technol Assess 5(8):1–57
49. Health Technology Assessment Task Group (2004) Health technology strategy 10: final report. Health Canada, Ottawa, ON
50. Detsky AS, Naglie IG (1990) A clinician’s guide to cost-effectiveness analysis. Ann Intern Med 113(2):147–154
51. Drummond M et al (2005) Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes, 3rd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford
52. Eisenberg JM (1989) Clinical economics. A guide to the economic analysis of clinical practices. JAMA 262(20):2879–2886
53. Tarride JE et al (2009) Approaches for economic evaluations of health care technologies. J Am Coll Radiol 6(5):307–316
54. Poulsen PB (2001) The economy. In: Kristensen FB, Horder M, Poulsen PB (eds) Health technology assessment handbook. Danish Institute for Health Technology Assessment, Copenhagen, pp 96–121
55. Weinstein M, Stason W (1977) Foundations of cost-effectiveness analysis for health and medical practices. N Engl J Med 296:716–721
56. Canadian Agency for Drugs Technologies in Health (2006) Guidelines for the economic evaluation of health technologies: Canada, vol 3. Canadian Agency for Drugs Technologies in Health, Ottawa, ON
57. Drummond M, Weatherly H (2000) Implementing the findings of health technology assessments. If the CAT got out of the bag, can the TAIL wag the dog? Int J Technol Assess Health Care 16(1):1–12
58. George CJ et al (1998) One-year follow-up of the Stent Restenosis (STRESS I) Study. Am J Cardiol 81(7):860–865
59. Macaya C et al (1996) Continued benefit of coronary stenting versus balloon angioplasty: one-year clinical follow-up of Benestent trial. Benestent Study Group 13. J Am Coll Cardiol 27(2):255–261
60. Stone GW et al (2004) One-year clinical results with the slow-release, polymer-based, paclitaxel- eluting TAXUS stent: the TAXUS-IV trial 14. Circulation 109(16):1942–1947
61. Medical Advisory Service (2003) Review of drug-eluting coronary stents [Internal document]. Ontario Ministry of Health and Long Term Care, Toronto, ON, pp 1–23
62. Ontario Health Technology Advisory Committee (2007) OHTAC recommendation: drug eluting stents (DES). Medical Advisory Secretariat Ministry of Health and Long-term Care, Toronto, ON
63. Pan American Health Organization (1998) Developing health technology assessment in Latin America and the Caribbean. World Health Organization, Geneva
64. Mowatt G et al (1998) When is the ‘right’ time to initiate an assessment of a health technology? Int J Technol Assess Health Care 14(2):372–386
65. Sculpher M, Drummond M, Buxton M (1997) The iterative use of economic evaluation as part of the process of health technology assessment. J Health Serv Res Policy 2(1):26–30
66. Buxton M (1987) Problems in the economic appraisal of new health technology: the evaluation of heart transplants I the UK. In: Dr ummond M (ed) Economic appraisal of health technology in the European Community. Oxford Medical Publications, Oxford, pp 103–118
67. Eisenberg JM (1999) Ten lessons for evidence-based technology assessment. JAMA 282(19):1865–1869
68. Stevens A, Milne R, Burls A (2003) Health technology assessment: history and demand. J Public Health Med 25(2):98–101