Keeping pace with new technologies: Systems needed to identify and evaluate them

BMJ

Volumn 319, Issue 7220, 1999, Pages 1291-

  Stevens, Andrew ^a   Lilford, Richard ^a   Milne, Ruairidh ^b   Gabbay, John ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BIRMINGHAM   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHAMPTON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; HEALTH CARE SYSTEM; MEDICAL RESEARCH; MEDICAL TECHNOLOGY; NOTE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RISK BENEFIT ANALYSIS;

HEALTH SERVICES; HUMANS; TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT, BIOMEDICAL;

EID: 85007767665     PISSN: 09598138     EISSN: 14685833     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/bmj.319.7220.1291     Document Type: Article

References (18)

1. Advisory Group on Health Technology Assessment for the Director of Research and Development. Assessing the effects of health technologies: principles, practice, proposals. London: Department of Health, 1992.
2. Rosen R, Gabbay J. Linking health technology assessment to practice. BMJ 1999; 319: 1292.
3. Chase D, Milne R, Stein K, Stevens A. What are the relative merits of the services used to identify potential research priorities for the UK's health technology assessment programme? Int J Tech Assess Health Care (in press.)
4. Robert G, Stevens A, Gabbay J. Methods and information sources for identifying new health care technologies and predicting their impact. Int J Tech Assess Health Care 1999; 3: 13.
5. Health Technology Assessment Programme. The annual report of the NHS Health Technology Assessment Programme 1998. London: NHS Executive, 1998.
6. Milne R, Stein K. The NHS R&D Health Technology Assessment Programme. In: Baker MR,Kirk S,eds. Research and development for the NHS: evidence, evaluation and effectiveness. Oxford: Radcliffe Medical Press, 1998.
7. Donaldson MS, Sox HC eds. Setting priorities for health technology assessment. A model process. Washington: National Academy Press, 1992.
8. Eddy D. Selecting technologies for assessment. Int J Tech Assess Health Care 1989; 5: 484-501.
9. Buxton M, Harmly S. How can payback from health services research be assessed? J Health Serv Res Policy 1996; 1: 35-47.
10. Woolf SH, Battista RN, Anderson GM, Logan AG, Wang E the Canadian Task Force on the Periodic Health Examination. Assessing the clinical effectiveness of preventive manoeuvres: analytic principles and systematic methods in reviewing evidence and developing clinical practice recommendations. J Clin Epidemiol 1990; 43: 891-905.
11. Stevens A, Colin-Jones D, Gabbay J. Quick and clean: authoritative health technology assessment for local health care contracting. Health Trends 1995; 27: 1994.
12. Kelly CA, Harvey RJ, Cayton H. Drug treatments for Alzheimer's disease. BMJ 1997; 314: 693.
13. Stein K. Donepezil in the treatment of mild to moderate dementia of the Alzheimer type (SDAT). Southampton: Wessex Institute for Health Research and Development, 1997 (Development and Evaluation Committee report No 69.)
14. Birks JS, Melzer D. Donepezil for mild and moderate Alzheimer's disease. Cochrane Library. Issue 4. Oxford: Update Software, 1999.
15. Sculpher MS, Drummond M F, Buxton M. The iterative use of economic evaluation as part of the process of health technology assessment. J Health Serv Res Policy 1997; 2: 26-30.
16. Lilford RJ, Royston G. Decision analysis in the selection, design and application of clinical and health services research. J Health Serv Res Policy 1998; 3: 159-166.
17. Lilford R, Braunholz D, Greenhalgh RM, Edwards S. Trials and fast changing technologies: the case for tracker studies. BMJ in press.
18. Lilford R, Jecock R, Shaw H, Chard J, Morrison B. Commissioning health services research: an iterative method. J Health Serv Res Policy 1999; 3: 164-167.