Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rdxmf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T00:25:58.289Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Current Issues in Health Care Technology Assessment

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 March 2009

Frederick Mosteller  and
Elisabeth Burdick
Frederick Mosteller
Affiliation:
Harvard School of Public Health
Elisabeth Burdick
Affiliation:
Harvard School of Public Health
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

This article presents an overview of technology assessment in the United States. The authors argue that while there are numerous institutions carrying out assessments, the United States requires an overall plan that would provide a national system for technology assessment. If technology assessment were more organized and systematized, the authors argue, it would be more efficient and would reach the public and the medical world effectively.

Type
General Essays
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 5 , Issue 1 , January 1989 , pp. 123 - 136
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1989

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1.Airlie House Conference. Summary of a workshop on the role of third-party payers in clinical trials of new agents. New England Journal of Medicine, 1983, 309, 1344–66.Google Scholar
2.Chalmers, T. C., Eckhardt, R. D., Reynolds, W. E. et al. , The treatment of acute infectious hepatitis. Controlled studies of the effects of diet, rest, and physical reconditioning on the acute course of the disease and on the incidence of relapses and residual abnormalities. The Journal of Clinical Investigation, 1955, 34, 1163–235.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3.Chalmers, T. C., Levin, H., Sacks, H. S. et al. , Meta-analysis of clinical trials as a scientific discipline. I: Control of bias and comparison with large co-operative trials. Statistics in Medicine, 1987, 6, 315–25.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4.Committee for Evaluating Medical Technologies in Clinical Use. Assessing medical technologies. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1985.Google Scholar
5.Cooper, L. S., Chalmers, T. C., McCally, M. et al. , Magnetic resonance imaging: The poor quality of early evaluations. Journal of the American Medical Association, 1988, 259, 3277–85.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6.Goodman, C. (ed.). Medical technology assessment directory. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1988.Google Scholar
7.Gutzwiller, F, & Chrzanowski, R.Technology assessment: Impact on medical practice. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 1986, 2, 99–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8.Hollandsworth, J.G.Evaluating the impact of medical treatment on the quality of life: A 5-year update. Social Science & Medicine, 1988, 26, 425–34.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9.Kahan, J. P., Kanouse, D. E., & Winkler, J. D.Stylistic variations in national institutes of health consensus statements, 1979–1983. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 1988, 4, 289–304.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10.Louis, T. A., Fineberg, H. V., & Mosteller, FFindings for public health from meta-analysis. Annual Review of Public Health, 1985, 6, 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11.Lundberg, G. D.The role and function of professional journals in the transfer of information. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 1988, 4, 51–58.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12.Najman, J. M., & Levine, S.Evaluating the impact of medical care in technologies on the quality of life: A review and critique. Social Science and Medicine, 1981, 158, 107–15.Google Scholar
13.National Leadership Commission. National leadership commission on health care statement. Washington, DC: National Leadership Commission, 1987.Google Scholar
14.Neuhauser, D. The Metro firm trials and ongoing patient randomization. In Tanur, J. et al. (eds.), Statistics: A guide to the unknown, 3rd ed. Pacific Grove, Calif.: Brooks/Cole, 1989, 25–30.Google Scholar
15.Office of Technology Assessment. The quality of medical care. Information for consumers. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1988.Google Scholar
16.Rutstein, D. D., Berenberg, W., Chalmers, T. C. et al. , Measuring the quality of medical care (Second revision of tables, may 1980): A clinical method. New England Journal of Medicine, 1976, 294, 582–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17.Sacks, H. S., Berrier, J., Reitman, D., Ancona-Berk, V. A., & Chalmers, T. C.Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. New England Journal of Medicine, 1987, 316, 450–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
18.Savagaro, P. J., & Williamson, J. W.End results of patient care: A provisional classification based on reports by internists. Medical Care, 1968, 6, 123–30.Google Scholar
19.Savagaro, P. J., & Williamson, J. W.Physician performance and its effects on patients: A classification based on reports by internists, surgeons, pediatricians, and obstetricians. Medical Care, 1970, 8, 299–308.Google Scholar
20.Shadish, W. A review and critique of controlled studies of the effectiveness of preventive child health care. In Light, R. J. (ed.), Evaluation studies review annual, vol. 8. Beverly Hills: Sage, 1983, 507–35.Google Scholar
21.Tygstrup, N.Transfer of information: A note on the role of professional societies. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 1988, 4, 107.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
22.Wennberg, J. E.The medical care outcome problem: An agenda for action. Washington, DC: National Leadership Commission on Health Care, undated. (See Exhibit Five.)Google Scholar
23.Wortman, P. M., & Yeaton, W. H.Using research synthesis in medical technology assessment. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 1987, 3, 509–22.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed