Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T16:58:04.990Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

EUR-ASSESS Project Subgroup Report on Methodology: Methodological Guidance for the Conduct of Health Technology Assessment

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 March 2009

Alessandro Liberati ,
Trevor A. Sheldon  and
H. David Banta
Alessandro Liberati
Affiliation:
Mario Negri Institute, Milan, Italy
Trevor A. Sheldon
Affiliation:
NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD), University of York, York, England
H. David Banta
Affiliation:
Netherlands Organization for Applied Scientific Research (TNO), Leiden, The Netherlands
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Health technology assessment (HTA) is primarily concerned with the consequences (benefits and costs) of health care and health policy decisions. Because decision making is complex and outcomes are often uncertain, it is helpful to attempt to assess the consequences. The quality of decisions can be improved by a process that provides a consistent framework for identifying and assessing health technologies.

Type
Special Section: Report from the Eur-Assess Project Eur-Assess
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 13 , Issue 2 , Spring 1997 , pp. 186 - 219
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1997

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.Australia Commonwealth Department of Health, Housing and Community Services. Guidelines for the pharmaceutical industry on preparation of submissions to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee. Canberra: Commonwealth Department, 1992.Google Scholar
2.Bailey, K. R.Generalizing the results of randomized clinical trials. Controlled Clinical Trials, 1994, 15, 15–23.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3.Balkany, T. H.A brief perspective on cochlear implants. New England Journal of Medicine, 1993, 328, 281–82.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4.Banta, H. D.Health care technology as a policy issue. Health Policy, 1994, 30, 1–21.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5.Bradley, C. Evaluating new technologies: Psychological issues in research design and measurement. In Bradley, C., Home, P., & Christie, M. (eds.), The technology of diabetes care. Harwood Academic Publications, 1991.Google Scholar
6.Bradley, C., Home, P., & Christie, M. (eds.). The technology of diabetes care. Harwood Academic Publications, 1991.Google Scholar
7.Briggs, A., & Schulpher, M.Sensitivity analysis in economic studies: A review of published studies. Health Economics, 1995, 4, 355–71.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8.Brook, R. H., Chassin, M. R., Fink, A., et al. A method for the detailed assessment of the appropriateness of medical technologies. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 1986, 2, 53–63.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9.Canadian Coordinating Office for Health Technology Assessment (CCOHTA). Guidelines for economic evaluation of Pharmaceuticals: Canada. Ottawa: CCOHTA, 1994.Google Scholar
10.The Canadian Task Force on the Periodic Health Examination. The Canadian guide to clinical preventive health care medicine. Ottawa: Canada Communication Group, 1994.Google Scholar
11.Cohen, N. L.The ethics of cochlear implants in young children. American Journal of Otology, 1994, 15, 1–2.Google ScholarPubMed
12.Cook, D. J., Sackett, D. L., & Spitzer, W. O.Methodologic guidelines for systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials in health care from the Potsdam consultation on meta-analysis. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 1995, 48, 167–71.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13.Dalkey, N. C.The Delphi method: Experimental study of group opinion. Santa Monica: RAND Corporation, RM-5888-PR, 06 1969.Google Scholar
14.Davey Smith, G., & Egger, M.Who benefits from medical interventions? British Medical Journal, 1994, 308, 72–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15.Drummond, M., Brandt, A., Luce, B., & Rovira, J.Standardizing methodologies for economic evaluation in health care: Practice, problems, and potential. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 1993, 9, 26–36.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
16.The treatment of depression in primary care. Effective Health Care Bulletin, 1994, 1, 1–12.Google Scholar
17.England and Wales Department of Health. Guidelines on good practice in the conduct of economic evaluation of medicines. London: Department of Health, 1994.Google Scholar
18.Frazier, H. S., & Mosteller, F. (eds). Medicine worth payingfor: Assessing medical innovations. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1995.Google Scholar
19.Gafni, A., & Birch, S.Preferences for outcomes in economic evaluation: an economic approach to addressing economic problems. Social Science and Medicine, 1995, 40, 767–76.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
20.Garattini, L., Grilli, R., Scopelliti, D., & Mantovani, L.A proposal for Italian guidelines in pharmacoeconomics. Pharmacoeconomics, 1995, 7, 1–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
21.Gibson, W. P. R.Opposition from the deaf groups to the cochlear implant. Medical Journal of Australia, 1991, 155, 212–14.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
22.Glick, H., Kinosian, B., & Schulman, K.Decision analytic modelling: some uses in the evaluation of new Pharmaceuticals. Drug Information Journal, 1994, 28, 691–707.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
23.Gotzsche, P. C., Liberati, A., Torri, V., & Rossetti, L.Beware surrogate endpoints. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 1996, 12, 238–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
24.Guba, E., & Lincoln, Y.Fourth generation evaluation. Newbury Park: SAGE, 1989.Google Scholar
25.Irwig, L., Macaskill, P., Glasziou, P., & Fahey, M.Meta-analytic methods for diagnostic test accuracy. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 1995, 48, 119–30.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
26.Kanouse, D. E., Brook, R. H., Winkler, J. D., et al. Changing medical practice through technology assessment: An evaluation of the NIH Consensus Development Program. Santa Monica: RAND Corporation, R-3452-NIH, 06 1987.Google Scholar
27.Kassirer, J. P., & Angell, M.The journal's policy on cost-effectiveness analyses. New England Journal of Medicine, 1994, 331, 669–70.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
28.Koopmanschap, M. A., Rutten, F., Van Ineveld, , & Van Roijen, L.The friction cost method for measuring indirect costs of disease. Journal of Health Economics, 1995, 14, 171–89.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
29.Luce, B. R., & Elixhauser, A.Estimating costs in the economic evaluation of medical technologies. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 1990, 6, 57–75.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
30.Mehrez, A., & Gafni, A.Quality adjusted life years (QALYs), utility theory, and healthy years equivalent (HYE). Medical Decision Making, 1989, 9, 142–49.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
31.NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. Undertaking systematic reviews of researc on effectiveness: CRD guidelines for those carrying out or commissioning reviews. CRD Report 4. York: University of York, 1996.Google Scholar
32.Ontario Ministry of Health. Ontario guidelines for economic analysis of pharmaceutical products. Toronto: Ontario Ministry of Health, 1994.Google Scholar
33.Oxman, A. D. (ed). The Cochrane Collaboration handbook, VI: Preparing and maintaining systematic reviews. Oxford: Cochrane Collaboration, 1994.Google Scholar
34.Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America. Methodological and conduct principles for pharmacoeconomic research. Washington, DC:phRMA, 1995.Google Scholar
35.Power, D. J., & Hyde, M. B.The cochlear implant and the deaf community. Medical Journal of Australia, 1992, 157, 421–22.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
36.Press, S. J. Qualitative controlled feedback for forming group judgements and making decisions. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 09 1978.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
37.Riegelman, R. K.The measures of medicine: Benefits, harms, and costs. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Science, 1995.Google Scholar
38.Rossetti, L., Marchetti, I., Orzalesi, N., et al. Randomized clinical trials on medical treatment of glaucoma: Are they appropriate to guide clinical practice? Archives of Ophthalmology, 1993, 111, 96–103.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
39.Rovira, J.Standardizing economic appraisal of health technology in the European Community. Social Science and Medicine, 1994, 38, 1675–78.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
40.Rovira, J., coordinator. The harmonization by consensus of the methodology for economic evaluation of health technologies in the European Union, newsletter 1. Barcelona, 1994.Google Scholar
41.Rovira, J.The standardization of the methodology and the theoretical foundations of CEA of health programs and technologies (unpublished report). Barcelona, 1995.Google Scholar
42.Rovira, J., & Antonanzas, F. (eds.). Propuesta de estandarizacion de algunos aspectos metodologicos de los analisis coste-efectividad y coste-utilidad en la evaluacion de tecnologias y programas sanitarios. Madrid: Ministerio de Sanidad y Consumo, 1994.Google Scholar
43.Rovira, J., & Hart, W. M.Economic evaluation of health care services: Is there agreement on methodology?SOIKOS S.L.Barcelona: Centre of Health Economics and Social Policy, 1994.Google Scholar
44.Russell, L. B., Gold, M., Siegel, J., et al. The role of cost-effectiveness analysis in health and medicine. Journal of the American Medical Association, 1996, 276, 1172–77.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
45.Sackett, D. L., Macdonald, L., & Haynes, R. B.Labeling of hypertensive patients. New England Journal of Medicine, 1983, 309, 1253.Google ScholarPubMed
46.Sheldon, T. A.Problems of using modelling in the economic evaluation of health care. Health Economics, 1996, 5, 1–11.3.0.CO;2-K>CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
47.Spitzer, W. O. (ed). The Potsdam international consultation on meta-analysis. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 1995,48, 1–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
48.Task Force on Principles for Economic Analysis of Health Care Technology. Economic analysis of health care technology: A report on principles. Annals of Internal Medicine, 1995, 122, 61–70.Google Scholar
49.Tine, F., Liberati, A., Craxi, A., et al. Interferon treatment in patients with chronic hepatitis B: A meta-analysis of the published literature. Journal of Hepatology, 1993, 18, 154–62.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
50.Torrance, G. W., & Feeny, D.Utilities and quality adjusted life years. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 1989, 5, 559–75.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
51.U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment. Identifying health technologies that work: Searching for evidence. OTA-H-608. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1994.Google Scholar
52.U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Guide to clinical preventive services, 2nd ed.Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1996.Google Scholar
53.Vanoli, A., Sheldon, T. A. & Drummond, M.Making cost-effectiveness information accessible: the NHS Economic Evaluation Database project. CRD Report 6. York: NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York, 1996.Google Scholar
54.Wittes, J.Introduction: From clinical trials to clinical practice — Four papers from a plenary session. Controlled Clinical Trials, 1994, 15, 5–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
55.Wong, J. B., Koff, R. S., Tine, F. & Pauker, S.Cost effectiveness of interferon-alpha 2b treatment for hepatitis B e antigen-positive chronic hepatitis B. Annals of Internal Medicine, 1995, 122, 664–75.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed