Domains of HTA

<2014-01-08> This chapter will include a selection of Web resources for each of the HTA Core model (r) domains

<a href="http://meka.thl.fi/htacore/ViewHandbook.aspx#guidance">Read more about the HTA Core Model</a>

Total votes: 2174

Health problem and current use of technology

<2014-01-08> This chapter will include a selection of Web resources for Health problem and current use of technology
Total votes: 2173

Description and technical characteristics of technology

<2014-01-08> This chapter will include a selection of Web resources for Description and technical characteristics of technology
Total votes: 1957

Safety

<2014-01-08> This chapter will include a selection of Web resources for Safety
Total votes: 1946

Diagnostic accuracy

Total votes: 2060

Screening tests

Total votes: 1939

Clinical effectiveness

<2014-01-08> This chapter will include a selection of Web resources for Clinical effectiveness
Total votes: 2098

Costs and economic evaluation

Author(s): 
Last revised: 
2014-06-23

This division presents a selection of methodological publications on costs and economic evaluation in Health Technology Assessment (HTA). These are publications on:

Total votes: 2260

Addressing / integrating economic evaluations in HTA

Author(s): 
Last revised: 
2014-06-23

This sub-division presents a selection of publications on addressing economic evaluations as well as conceptual contributions on economic evaluations and Health Technology Assessment (HTA):

  1. Anderson R. Systematic reviews of economic evaluations: Utility or futility? Health Econ 2010; 19(3): 350-364. [Further reference details] [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  2. Barbieri M, Drummond M. Conflict of interest in industry-sponsored economic evaluations: Real or imagined? Curr Oncol Rep 2001;3:410–413. [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  3. Bridges JF. What can economics add to health technology assessment? Please not just another cost-effectiveness analysis! Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res 2006; 6(1): 19-24. [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  4. Brousselle A, Lessard C. Economic evaluation to inform health care decision-making: Promise, pitfalls and a proposal for an alternative path. Soc Sci Med 2011; 72(6): 832-839. [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  5. Culyer AJ. Hic sunt dracones: The future of health technology assessment. One economist's perspective. Med Decis Making 2012; 32(1): E25-E32. [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  6. Drummond MF, Sculpher MJ, Torrance GW, O'Brien BJ, Stoddart GL. Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes. New York: Oxford University Press; 2007. [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  7. Ellemann-Jensen P. Sundhedsøkonomiske aspekter af medicinsk teknologivurdering. Odense: Det samfundsfaglige fakultet, Odense Universitet; 1992. [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  8. Evers S, Goossens M, de Vet H, van Tulder M, Ament A. Criteria list for assessment of methodological quality of economic evaluations: Consensus on Health Economic Criteria. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2005; 21(2): 240-245. [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  9. Goeree R, He J, O'Reilly D, Tarride JE, Xie F, Lim M, Burke N. Transferability of health technology assessments and economic evaluations: A systematic review of approaches for assessment and application. Clinicoecon Outcomes Res 2011; 3: 89-104. [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  10. Hutton J. 'Health Economics' and the evolution of economic evaluation of health technologies. Health Econ 2012; 21(1): 13-8. [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  11. Kirisits A, Redekop WK. The economic evaluation of medical devices: Challenges ahead. Appl Health Econ Health Policy 2013; 11(1): 15-26. [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  12. Lettieri E, Masella C. Spesa sanitaria e valutazione delle tecnologie sanitarie. G Ital Nefrol. 2007; 24 (Suppl 40): s22-s36. [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  13. Mathes T, Jacobs E, Morfeld JC, Pieper D. Methods of international health technology assessment agencies for economic evaluations: A comparative analysis. BMC Health Serv Res 2013; 13: 371. [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  14. Mathes T, Walgenbach M, Antoine SL, Pieper D, Eikermann M. Methods for systematic reviews of health economic evaluations: A systematic review, comparison, and synthesis of method literature. Med Decis Making 2014 Apr 8. [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  15. Menon D. The science of health technology assessment: The economic perspective. Can J Clin Pharmacol 2001; 8 (Suppl A): 17A-20A. [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  16. Rotter JS, Foerster D, Bridges JF. The changing role of economic evaluation in valuing medical technologies. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res 2012; 12(6): 711-23. [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  17. Rutten, F. Health technology assessment and policy from the economic perspective. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2004; 20(1): 67-70. [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  18. Sculpher MJ, Pang FS, Manca A, Drummond MF, Golder S, Urdahl H, et al. Generalisability in economic evaluation studies in healthcare: A review and case studies. Health Technol Assess 2004; 8(49): 1-192. [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  19. Simoens S. Health technology assessment and economic evaluation across jurisdictions. Value Health 2010; 13(6): 857-859. [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  20. Stahl JE. Modelling methods for pharmacoeconomics and health technology assessment: An overview and guide. Pharmacoeconomics 2008; 26(2): 131-148. [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  21. Tarride JE, Blackhouse G, Bischof M, McCarron EC, Lim M, Ferrusi IL, et al. Approaches for economic evaluations of health care technologies. J Am Coll Radiol 2009; 6(5): 307-316. [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  22. Vale L. Health technology assessment and economic evaluation: Arguments for a national approach. Value Health 2010; 13(6): 859-861. [Further reference details] [Full text]
Total votes: 2300

Guidance publications / Handbooks

Author(s): 
Last revised: 
2014-06-21

This sub-division presents a selection of guidance publications on economic evaluation in Health Technology Assessment (HTA):

  1. Augustovski F, Garay OU, Pichon-Riviere A, Rubinstein A, Caporale JE. Economic evaluation guidelines in Latin America: A current snapshot. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res 2010; 10(5): 525-537. [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  2. Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health. Guidelines for the economic evaluation of health technologies: Canada. Ottawa: CADTH; 2006. [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  3. Cleemput I, Neyt M, Van de Sande S, Nancy T. Belgian guidelines for economic evaluations and budget impact analyses. Brussels: Belgian Health Care Knowledge Centre (KCE); 2012. [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  4. European network for Health Technology Assessment (EUnetHTA). HTA Core Model® for Medical and Surgical Interventions v. 1.0r. Helsinki: Finohta; 2008. [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  5. European network for Health Technology Assessment (EUnetHTA). HTA Core Model® for Diagnostic Technologies v. 1.0r. Helsinki: Finohta; 2008. [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  6. European network for Health Technology Assessment (EUnetHTA). HTA Core Model for screening technologies: Version 1.0. Helsinki: Finohta; 2012. [Further reference details] [Full text]
  7. Haute Autorité de santé. Choices in methods for economic evaluation: A methodological guide. Paris: HAS; 2012. [Further reference details] [Full text]

  8. Health Information and Quality Authority. Guidelines for the economic evaluation of health technologies in Ireland. Dublin: HIQA; 2014. [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  9. Kristensen FB, Sigmund H (ed). Health Technology Assessment Handbook. Copenhagen: Danish Centre for Health Technology Assessment (DACEHTA), National Board of Health; 2007. [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  10. Mittmann N, Evans WK, Rocchi A, Longo CJ, Au HJ, Husereau D, et al. Addendum to CADTH’s guidelines for the economic evaluation of health technologies: Specific guidance for oncology products. Ottawa: Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health; 2009. [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  11. Larsen RJ, Asmussen M, Christensen T, Olsen J, Poulsen PB, Sørensen J. Economic evaluations in international health technology assessments: A study of methodologies. Copenhagen: Danish Centre for Evaluation and Health Technology Assessment (DACEHTA), National Board of Health; 2003. [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  12. Philips Z, Bojke L, Sculpher M, Claxton K, Golder S. Good practice guidelines for decision-analytic modelling in health technology assessment: a review and consolidation of quality assessment. Pharmacoeconomics 2006; 24(4): 355-371. [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  13. Statens beredning för medicinsk utvärdering. Hälsoekonomiska utvärderingar. In: Statens beredning för medicinsk utvärdering. Utvärdering av metoder i hälso- och sjukvården: En handbok. Stockholm: SBU; 2012: 137-154. [Further reference details] [Full text]
Total votes: 2127

Methods approaches

Author(s): 
Last revised: 
2014-06-23

This sub-division presents a selection of publications on different methods approaches to economic evaluations in Health Technology Assessment (HTA). These most commonly used methods approaches are:

Total votes: 2230

Cost-analysis

Author(s): 
Last revised: 
2014-07-12

This sub-division presents a selection of methodological publications on cost-analysis and Health Technology Assessment (HTA):

  1. Balas EA, Kretschmer RA, Gnann W, West DA, Boren SA, Centor RM, et al. Interpreting cost analyses of clinical interventions. JAMA 1998; 279(1): 54-57. [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  2. Briggs A. Economic evaluation and clinical trials: Size matters. The need for greater power in cost analyses poses an ethical dilemma. BMJ 2000; 321(7273): 1362-1363. [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  3. Briggs A, Clark T, Wolstenholme J, Clarke P. Missing....presumed at random: Cost-analysis of incomplete data. Health Econ 2003; 12(5): 377-392. [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  4. Brosnan C, Swint JM. Cost analysis: Concepts and application. Public Health Nurs 2001; 18(1): 13-18. [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  5. Chang WY, Henry BM. Methodologic principles of cost analyses in the nursing, medical, and health services literature, 1990-1996. Nursing Research 1999; 48(2): 94-104. [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  6. Doshi JA, Glick HA, Polsky D. Analyses of cost data in economic evaluations conducted alongside randomized controlled trials. Value Health 2006; 9(5): 334-340. [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  7. Evans C, Mertzanis P, Abetz L. Measurement strategies for indirect costs in economic evaluations. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res 2003; 3(6): 703-716. [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  8. Huang Y. Cost analysis with censored data. Med Care 2009; 47(7 Suppl 1): S115-S119. [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  9. Jacobs P, Fassbender K. The measurement of indirect costs in the health economic evaluation literature: A review. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 1998; 14(4): 799-808. [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  10. Jakubczyk M, Wrona W, Macioch T, Golicki D, Niewada M, Hermanowski T. Koszty posrednie w ocenie technologii medycznych. Pol Merkur Lekarski 2010; 28(163): 42-45. [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  11. Liljas B. How to calculate indirect costs in economic evaluations. Pharmacoeconomics 1998; 13(1 Pt 1): 1-7. [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  12. Platis H, Liaropoulos L. Comparative cost analysis of two different medical interventions: educational implications. Stud Health Technol Inform 1998; 51: 50-64. [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  13. Walker D, Kumaranayake L. Allowing for differential timing in cost analyses: discounting and annualization. Health Policy Plan 2002; 17(1): 112-118. [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  14. Wijeysundera HC, Wang X, Tomlinson G, Ko DT, Krahn MD. Techniques for estimating health care costs with censored data: An overview for the health services researcher. Clinicoecon Outcomes Res 2012; 4: 145-155. [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  15. Zhao FL, Xie F, Hu H, Li SC. Transferability of indirect cost of chronic disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Pharmacoeconomics 2013; 31(6): 501-508. [Further reference details] [Full text]
Total votes: 2421

Cost-benefit analysis

Author(s): 
Last revised: 
2014-07-04

This sub-division presents a selection of methodological publications on cost-benefit analysis and Health Technology Assessment (HTA):

  1. Brent RJ. Cost-benefit analysis and health care evaluation. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing; 2004. [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  2. Cost-benefit analysis identifies best practices. Healthc Benchmarks 1997; 4(8): 111-113. [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  3. Islam SMN, Yee Mak CS.  Normative health economics: A new pragmatic approach to cost benefit analysis, mathematical models and applications. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan; 2006. [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  4. Kristiansen IS, Stavem K, Linnestad K, Pedersen KM. Evaluering av medisinske metoder: Kan vi stole pa kostnad-effekt-analyser? Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen 2003; 123(5): 657-660. [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  5. Layard R, Glaister S. Cost-benefit analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2005. [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  6. McIntosh E. Using discrete choice experiments within a cost-benefit analysis framework: Some considerations. Pharmacoeconomics 2006; 24(9): 855-868. [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  7. McIntosh E, Clarke PM, Frew EJ, Louviere JJ. (ed). Applied methods of cost-benefit analysis in Health Care. New York: Oxford University Press; 2011. [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  8. Sloan FA, Hsieh CR [ed]. Pharmaceutical innovation: Incentives, competition, and cost-benefit analysis in international perspective. New York: Cambridge University Press; 2007. [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  9. Udvarhelyi IS, Colditz GA, Rai A, Epstein AM. Cost-effectiveness and cost-benefit analyses in the medical literature: Are the methods being used correctly? Ann Intern Med 1992; 116(3): 238-244. [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  10. Zarnke KB, Levine MA, O'Brien BJ. Cost-benefit analyses in the health-care literature: Don't judge a study by its label. J Clin Epidemiol 1997; 50(7): 813-822. [Further reference details] [Full text]
Total votes: 2154

Cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA)

Author(s): 
Last revised: 
2014-06-30

This sub-division presents a selection of methodological publications on cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) in Health Technology Assessment (HTA):

  1. Adam T, Koopmanschap MA, Evans DB. Cost-effectiveness analysis: Can we reduce variability in costing methods? Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2003; 19: 407-420. [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  2. An introduction to the methods of cost-effectiveness analysis. Drug Ther Bull 2012; 50(7): 81-84. [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  3. Adang E, Voordijk L, van der Wilt JG, Ament A. Cost-effectiveness analysis in relation to budgetary constraints and reallocative restrictions. Health Policy 2005; 74(2): 146-156. [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  4. Baltussen R, Brouwer W, Niessen L. Cost-effectiveness analysis for priority setting in health: Penny-wise but pound-foolish. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2005; 21(4): 532-534. [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  5. Baltussen RM, Hutubessy RC, Evans DB, Murray CJ. Uncertainty in cost-effectiveness analysis: Probabilistic uncertainty analysis and stochastic league tables. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2002; 18: 112-119. [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  6. Berchialla P, Gregori D, Brunello F, Veltri A, Petrinco M, Pagano E. L'approccio bayesiano all'analisi di costo-efficacia degli interventi sanitari. Epidemiol Prev 2009; 33(3): 123-128. [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  7. Dakin H, Wordsworth S. Cost-minimisation analysis versus cost-effectiveness analysis: Revisited. Health Economics 2013; 22: 22-34. [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  8. Eckermann S, Briggs A, Willan AR. Health technology assessment in the cost-disutility plane. Med Decis Making 2008; 28(2): 172-181. [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  9. Espinoza MA, Manca A, Claxton K, Sculpher MJ. The value of heterogeneity for cost-effectiveness subgroup analysis: Conceptual framework and application. Med Decis Making 2014; Jun 18. [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  10. Gray AM. Applied methods of cost-effectiveness analysis in health care. New York: Oxford University Press; 2010. [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  11. Hernández MA, Vázquez-Polo FJ, González-Torre FJ, Bas EM. Complementing the net benefit approach: A new framework for Bayesian cost-effectiveness analysis. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2009; 25(4): 537-545. [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  12. Jena AB, Philipson TJ. Cost-effectiveness analysis and innovation. J Health Econ 2008; 27(5): 1224-1236. [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  13. Johri M, Norheim OF. Can cost-effectiveness analysis integrate concerns for equity? Systematic review. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2012; 28(2): 125-132. [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  14. Kaltenthaler E, Tappenden P, Paisley S. Reviewing the evidence to inform the population of cost-effectiveness models within health technology assessments. Value Health 2013; 16(5): 830-836. [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  15. Kruse M, Sørensen J, Gyrd-Hansen D. Future costs in cost-effectiveness analysis: An empirical assessment. Eur J Health Econ 2012; 13(1): 63-70. [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  16. Manca A, Hawkins N, Sculpher MJ. Estimating mean QALYs in trial-based cost-effectiveness analysis: The importance of controlling for baseline utility. Health Economics 2005; 14: 487-496. [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  17. Moreno E, Girón FJ, Vázquez-Polo FJ, Negrín MA. A Bayesian net benefit approach to cost-effectiveness analysis in health technology assessment . Int J Econ Bus 2009; 16(3): 323-345. [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  18. Neumann PJ. Using cost-effectiveness analysis to improve health care: Opportunities and barriers. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2005. [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  19. Noble SM, Hollingworth W, Tilling K. Missing data in trial-based cost-effectiveness analysis: The current state of play. Health Econ 2012; 21(2): 187-200. [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  20. Rosén M. Who should conduct modeling and cost-effectiveness analysis? Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2014; 30(1): 128-129. [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  21. Sculpher M. Subgroups and heterogeneity in cost-effectiveness analysis. PharmacoEconomics 2008; 26: 799-806. [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  22. Secoli SR, Nita ME, Ono-Nita SK, Nobre M. Avaliacao de tecnologia em saude: II. A analise de custo-efetividade. Arq Gastroenterol 2010; 47(4): 329-333. [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  23. Sendi P, Al MJ. Revisiting the decision rule of cost-effectiveness analysis under certainty and uncertainty. Soc Sci Med 2003; 57(6): 969-974. [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  24. Tan-Torres Edejer T, Baltussen R, Adam T, Hutubessy R, Acharya A, Evans DB, et al. WHO guide to cost-effectiveness analysis. Geneva: World Health Organization (WHO); 2003. [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  25. Van de Wetering G, Woertman WH, Adang EM. Time to incorporate time in cost-effectiveness analysis. Eur J Health Econ 2012; 13(3): 223-226. [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  26. Zaric GS. The impact of ignoring population heterogeneity when Markov models are used in cost-effectiveness analysis. Med Decis Making 2003; 23(5): 379-396. [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  27. Zivin JG. Cost-effectiveness analysis with risk aversion. Health Economics 2001; 10: 499-508. [Further reference details] [Full text]
Total votes: 2166

Cost-minimization analysis (CMA)

Author(s): 
Last revised: 
2014-07-04

This sub-division presents a selection of methodological publications on cost-minimization analysis and Health Technology assessment (HTA):

  1. Briggs AH, O'Brien BJ. The death of cost-minimization analysis? Health Econ 2001; 10(2): 179-184. [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  2. Dakin H, Wordsworth S. Cost-minimisation analysis versus cost-effectiveness analysis: Revisited. Health Econ 2013; 22(1): 22-34.  [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  3. Haycox A. What is cost-minimization analysis? In: Arnold RJG [ed]. Pharmacoeconomics: From theory to practice. Boca Raton: CRC Press; 2010: 83-94.  [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  4. Jones KR. Economic decision making: Cost minimization analysis. Semin Nurse Manag 2001; 9(2): 73-74.  [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  5. Newby D, Hill S. Use of pharmacoeconomics in prescribing research: Part 2. Cost-minimization analysis. When are two therapies equal? J Clin Pharm Ther 2003; 28(2): 145-150.  [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  6. Rascati KL. Essentials of pharmacoeconomics. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams and Wilkins; 2009. [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  7. Robinson R. Costs and cost-minimisation analysis. BMJ 1993; 307(6906): 726-728.  [Further reference details] [Full text]
Total votes: 2307

Cost-outcome analysis

Author(s): 
Last revised: 
2014-07-26

This sub-division presents a selection of methodological publications on cost-outcome analysis and Health Technology Assessment (HTA):

  1. Ellwein LB, Drummond MF. Economic analysis alongside clinical trial: Bias in the assessment of economic outcomes. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 1996, 12(4): 691-697. [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  2. Hargreaves WA, Shumway M, Hu TW, Cuffel B. Cost-outcome methods for mental health. San Diego: Academic Press; 1998.  [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  3. Kohli R, Tan JK, Piontek FA, Ziege DE, Groot H. Integrating cost information with health management support system: An enhanced methodology to assess health care quality drivers. Top Health Inf Manage 1999; 20(1): 80-95.  [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  4. Oliver A. Accounting for the missing opportunity costs in incremental cost-outcome analysis. Appl Health Econ Health Policy 2002; 1(4): 191-196.  [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  5. Rutten-van Mölken MP, van Doorslaer EK, van Vliet RC. Statistical analysis of cost outcomes in a randomized controlled clinical trial. Health Econ 1994; 3(5): 333–345.  [Further reference details] [Full text]
Total votes: 2285

Cost-utility analysis (CUA)

Author(s): 
Last revised: 
2014-07-02

This sub-division presents a selection of methodological publications on cost-utility-analysis (CUA) and Health Technoogy Assessment (HTA):

  1. Bell CM, Chapman RH, Stone PW, Sandberg EA, Neumann PJ. An off-the-shelf help list: A comprehensive catalog of preference scores from published cost-utility analyses. Med Decis Making 2001; 21(4): 288-294. [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  2. Brauer CA, Rosen AB, Greenberg D, Neumann PJ. Trends in the measurement of health utilities in published cost-utility analyses. Value Health 2006; 9(4): 213-218. [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  3. de Neeling JND. Cost-utility analysis. The Hague: Health Council of the Netherlands (GR); 2003. [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  4. Dolan P, Shaw R, Tsuchiya A, Williams A. QALY maximisation and people's preferences: A methodological review of the literature. Health Econ 2005; 14(2): 197-208. [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  5. Gezondheidsraad. Ethical aspects of cost-utility analysis: 4th Forum of National Ethics Councils in EU Countries, Amsterdam, 22 December 2004. The Hague: Health Council of the Netherlands (GR); 2005.[Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  6. Ginsberg GM. Generalizability of cost-utility analyses across countries and settings. Best Pract Res Clin Gastroenterol 2013; 27(6): 845-852.[Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  7. Greenberg D, Pliskin JS. Preference-based outcome measures in cost-utility analyses: A 20-year overview. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2002; 18(3): 461-466.  [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  8. Greenberg D, Rosen AB, Olchanski NV, Stone PW, Nadai J, Neumann PJ. Delays in publication of cost utility analyses conducted alongside clinical trials: Registry analysis. BMJ 2004; 328(7455): 1536-1537. [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  9. Lilford R, Girling A, Braunholtz D, Gillett W, Gordon J, Brown CA, et al. Cost-utility analysis when not everyone wants the treatment: Modeling split-choice bias. Med Decis Making 2007; 27(1): 21-26. [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  10. McDonough CM, Tosteson AN. Measuring preferences for cost-utility analysis: How choice of method may influence decision-making. Pharmacoeconomics 2007; 25(2): 93-106.  [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  11. Pickard AS, Wang Z, Walton SM, Lee TA. Are decisions using cost-utility analyses robust to choice of SF-36/SF-12 preference-based algorithm? Health Qual Life Outcomes 2005; 3: 11. [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  12. Sonnad SS , Greenberg D , Rosen AB, Neumann PJ. Diffusion of published cost-utility analyses in the field of health policy and practice. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2005; 21(3): 399-402. [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  13. Stone PW, Chapman RH, Sandberg EA, Liljas B, Neumann PJ. Measuring costs in cost-utility analyses: Variations in the literature. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2000; 16(1): 111-124. [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  14. Tsuchiya A, Dolan P. The QALY model and individual preferences for health states and health profiles over time: A systematic review of the literature. Med Decis Making 2005; 25(4): 460-467. [Further reference details] [Full text]
Total votes: 2412

Modeling

Author(s): 
Last revised: 
2014-06-25

This sub-division presents methodological publications on modeling in Health Technollogy Assessment (HTA):

  1. Baltussen R, Niessen L. Priority setting of health interventions: The need for multi-criteria decision analysis. Cost Eff Resour Alloc 2006; 4: 14. [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  2. Barton P, Bryan S, Robinson S. Modelling in the economic evaluation of health care: Selecting the appropriate approach. J Health Serv Res Policy 2004; 9: 110-118. [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  3. Briggs A, Claxton K; Sculpher MJ. Decision modelling for health economic evaluation. New York: Oxford University Press; 2011. [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  4. Caro JJ, Briggs AH, Siebert U, Kuntz KM; ISPOR-SMDM Modeling Good Research Practices Task Force. Modeling good research practices: Overview. A report of the ISPOR-SMDM Modeling Good Research Practices Task Force-1. Med Decis Making 2012; 32(5): 667-677. [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  5. Chilcott J, Tappenden P, Rawdin A, Johnson M, Kaltenthaler E, Paisley S, et al. Avoiding and identifying errors in health technology assessment models: Qualitative study and methodological review. Health Technol Assess 2010; 14(25): 1-107. [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  6. Craig D, McDaid C, Fonseca T, Stock C, Duffy S. Woolacott N. Are adverse effects incorporated in economic models? A survey of current practice. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2010; 26(3): 323-329. [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  7. Decision analytic modelling in the economic evaluation of health technologies: A consensus statement. Consensus conference on guidelines on economic modelling in health technology assessment. Pharmacoeconomics 2000; 17(5): 443-444. [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  8. Detsky AS, Naglie G, Krahn MD, et al. Primer on medical decision analysis: Part 1. Getting started. Med Decis Making 1997; 17: 123–125. [Further reference details] [Full text]
  9. Detsky AS, Naglie G, Krahn MD, Redelmeier DA, Naimark D. Primer on medical decision analysis: Part 2. Building a tree. Med Decis Making 1997; 17(2): 126-35. [Further reference details] [Full text]

    Naglie G, Krahn MD, Naimark D, Redelmeier DA, Detsky AS. Primer on medical decision analysis: Part 3. Estimating probabilities and utilities. Med Decis Making 1997; 17(2): 136-141. [Further reference details] [Full text]

    Krahn MD, Naglie G, Naimark D, Redelmeier DA, Detsky AS. Primer on medical decision analysis: Part 4. Analyzing the model and interpreting the results. Med Decis Making 1997; 17(2): 142-151. [Further reference details] [Full text]

    Naimark D, Krahn MD, Naglie G, Redelmeier DA, Detsky AS. Primer on medical decision analysis: Part 5. Working with Markov processes. Med Decis Making 1997; 17(2): 152-159. [Further reference details] [Full text]

  10. Diaby V, Goeree R. How to use multi-criteria decision analysis methods for reimbursement decision-making in healthcare: A step-by-step guide. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res 2014; 14(1): 81-99. [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  11. Fenwick E, Claxton K, Sculpher M, Briggs A. Improving the efficiency and relevance of health technology assessment: The role of iterative decision analytic modelling. York: Centre for Health Economics (CHE), University of York; 2000. [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  12. Garattini L, Koleva D, Casadei G. Modeling in pharmacoeconomic studies: Funding sources and outcomes. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2010; 26(3): 330-333. [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  13. Goetghebeur MM, Wagner M, Khoury H, Levitt RJ, Erickson LJ, Rindress D. Bridging health technology assessment (HTA) and efficient health care decision making with multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA): Applying the EVIDEM framework to medicines appraisal. Med Decis Making 2012; 32(2): 376-388. [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  14. Grigore B, Peters J, Hyde C, Stein K. Methods to elicit probability distributions from experts: A systematic review of reported practice in health technology assessment. Pharmacoeconomics 2013; 31(11): 991-1003. [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  15. Kim SY. Use of a decision-analytic model in a health technology assessment: Beyond measuring value for money. Isr J Health Policy Res 2013; 2(1): 15. [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  16. Marsh K, Lanitis T, Neasham D, Orfanos P, Caro J. Assessing the value of healthcare interventions using multi-criteria decision analysis: A review of the literature. Pharmacoeconomics 2014; 32(4): 345-65. [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  17. Philips Z, Bojke L, Sculpher M, Claxton K, Golder S. Good practice guidelines for decision-analytic modelling in health technology assessment: A review and consolidation of quality assessment. Pharmacoeconomics 2006; 24(4): 355-371. [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  18. Philips Z, Ginnelly L, Sculpher M, et al. Review of guidelines for good practice in decision-analytic modelling in health technology assessment. Health Technol Assess 2004; 8: 1–158. [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  19. Roberts M, Russell LB, Paltiel AD, Chambers M, McEwan P, Krahn M; et al. Conceptualizing a model: A report of the ISPOR-SMDM Modeling Good Research Practices Task Force-2. Value Health 2012; 15(6): 804-811. [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  20. Thokala P, Duenas A. Multiple criteria decision analysis for health technology assessment. Value Health 2012; 15(8): 1172-1181. [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  21. Vemer P, van Voom GA, Ramos IC, Krabbe PF, Al MJ, Feenstra TL. Improving model validation in health technology assessment: Comments on guidelines of the ISPOR-SMDM modeling good research practices task force. Value Health 2013; 16(6): 1106-1107. [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  22. Zechmeister-Koss I, Schnell-Inderst P, Zauner G. Appropriate evidence sources for populating decision analytic models within health technology assessment (HTA): A systematic review of HTA manuals and health economic guidelines. Med Decis Making 2014; 34(3): 288-299. [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  23. Zechmeister‐Koss I. IFEDH: Innovative Framework for Evidence Based Decision making in Health care. Standards on how to parameterise models via published literature. Input of the LBI‐HTA (WP 4.2). Vienna: Ludwig Boltzmann Institut fuer Health Technology Assessment (LBIHTA); 2012. [Further reference details] [Full text]
Total votes: 2208

Ethical analysis

Author(s): 
Last revised: 
2014-02-16

Ethics and HTA is represented by an HTAi / INAHTA Interest Sub-Group. Please feel free to visit the web page of the HTAi / INAHTA Interest Sub-Group on Ethical Issues in HTA.

Methodological publications on Information Retrieval and ethical issues in HTA are presented in the SuRe Info section "Ethical analysis" of the HTAi Vortal (web page under construction).

This division presents a selection of methodological publications on ethical implications and values of the use and assessment of health technologies - for individuals and the society. These are publications on:

  • Addressing / integrating ethical issues in HTA
  • Guidance publications / Handbooks
  • Methods approaches
  • Preparing systematic reviews on ethical issues in health technologies
  • Ethical regulations, codes, conventions etc.
  • Total votes: 2003

    Addressing / integrating ethical issues in HTA

    Author(s): 
    Last revised: 
    2014-02-20

    This sub-division presents publications on surveys addressing ethical issues in HTA as well as conceptual contributions on ethics and HTA:

    1. Arellano LE, Willett JM, Borry P. International survey on attitudes toward ethics in health technology assessment: An exploratory study. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2011; 27(1): 50-54. [Further reference details] [Full text]

    2. Braunack-Mayer AJ. Ethics and health technology assessment: Handmaiden and/or critic? Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2006; 22(3): 307-312. [Further reference details] [Full text]

    3. Callahan D. Health technology assessment implementation: The politics of ethics. Med Decis Making. 2012; 32(1): E13-19. [Further reference details] [Full text]

    4. Decker M. The role of ethics in interdisciplinary technology assessment. Poiesis Prax 2004; 2(2-3): 139–156. [Further reference details] [Full text]

    5. DeJean D, Giacomini M, Schwartz L, Miller FA. Ethics in Canadian health technology assessment: A descriptive review. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2009; 25(4): 463-469. [Further reference details] [Full text]

    6. Droste S, Gerhardus A. Ethische Aspekte in Kurz-HTA-Berichten: Eine systematische Übersicht. Z Arztl Fortbild Qualitatssich 2003; 97(10): 711–715. [Further reference details] [Full text]

    7. Duthie K, Bond K. Improving ethics analysis in health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2011; 27(1): 64-70. [Further reference details] [Full text]

    8. Gallo P. Integrating ethical enquiry and health technology assessment: Limits and opportunities for efficiency and equity. Poiesis Prax 2004; 2(2-3): 103–117. [Further reference details] [Full text]

    9. Giacomini M, Winsor S, Abelson J. Ethics in health technology assessment: Understanding health technologies as policies. Healthc Manage Forum 2013; 26(2): 72-76. [Further reference details] [Full text]

    10. Goldenberg MJ. Evidence-based ethics? On evidence-based practice and the "empirical turn" from normative bioethics. BMC Med Ethics 2005; 6: E11. [Further reference details] [Full text]

    11. Gupta M. A critical appraisal of evidence-based medicine: Some ethical considerations. J Eval Clin Pract 2003; 9(2): 111-121. [Further reference details] [Full text]

    12. Hennen L. Biomedical and bioethical issues in Parliamentary TA and in Health Technology Assessment. Poiesis Prax 2004; 2(2-3): 207-220. [Further reference details] [Full text]

    13. Hofmann BM. Why ethics should be part of health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2008; 24(4):423-429. [Further reference details] [Full text]

    14. Hofmann B. Why not integrate ethics in HTA: Identification and assessment of the reasons. GMS Health Technol Assess 2014; 10: Doc04. [Further reference details] [Full text]

    15. INAHTA Ethics Working Group. INAHTA’S Working Group on handling ethical issues: Final report. Melbourne: INAHTA; 2005. [Further reference details] [Full text]

    16. Lehoux P, Williams-Jones B. Mapping the integration of social and ethical issues in health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2007; 23(1): 9-16. [Further reference details] [Full text]

    17. Ruggiero VR. Thinking critically about ethical issues. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2014. [Further reference details] [Full text]

    18. Sandman L, Heintz E. Assessment vs. appraisal of ethical aspects of health technology assessment: Can the distinction be upheld? GMS Health Technol Assess 2014; 10: Doc05. [Further reference details] [Full text]

    19. ten Have H. Ethical perspectives on health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2004; 20(1): 71-76. [Further reference details] [Full text]

    20. Van der Wilt GJ, Reuzel R, Banta HD. The ethics of assessing health technologies. Theor Med Bioeth 2000; 21(1): 103-115. [Further reference details] [Full text]

    21. Van der Wilt GJ. Health technology assessment: Trying to bring empirical and ethical inquiry together. Poiesis Prax 2004; 2(2-3): 195-206. [Further reference details] [Full text]
    Total votes: 2320

    Ethical regulations, codes, conventions etc.

    Author(s): 
    Last revised: 
    2014-02-22

    This sub-division presents a selection of publications on ethical regulations, codes and conventions relevant to HTA:

    1. Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences (CIOMS), World Health Organization (WHO). International ethical guidelines for epidemiological studies. Geneva: CIOMS; 2008. [Further reference details] [Full text]

    2. Council of Europe. Additional Protocol to the Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine, concerning Biomedical Research: Explanatory report. Paris: Council of Europe; 1997. [Further reference details] [Full text]

    3. Council of Europe. Additional protocol to the convention on human rights and biomedicine, concerning biomedical research. Strasbourg, 25.I.2005. Paris: Council of Europe; 2005. [Further reference details] [Full text]

    4. Council of Europe. Convention for the protection of human rights and dignity of the human being with regard to the application of biology and medicine: Convention on human rights and biomedicine. Oviedo, 4.4.1997. Paris: Council of Europe; 1997. [Further reference details] [Full text]

    5. Ehni HJ, Wiesing U. International ethical regulations on placebo-use in clinical trials: A comparative analysis. Bioethics 2008; 22(1): 64-74. [Further reference details] [Full text]

    6. European Group on Ethics in Science and New Technologies {EGE). Statement of the European Group on Ethics in Science and New Technologies {EGE) on the Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and the Council on Clinical Trials on Medicinal Products for Human Use, and repealing Directive 2001/20/EC {COM 2012) 369 final. Bruxelles: European Commission. [Further reference details] [Full text]

    7. European Parliament. Directive 2001/20/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 April 2001 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to the implementation of good clinical practice in the conduct of clinical trials on medicinal products for human use. Official Journal of the European Communities 2001; 1.5.2001: L 121/34-L 121/44. [Further reference details] [Full text]

    8. Health Professions Council of South Africa. General ethical guidelines for health researchers. Pretoria: HPCSA; 2008. [Further reference details] [Full text]

    9. Idänpään-Heikkilä JE, Fluss S. The CIOMS view on the use of placebo in clinical trials. Sci Eng Ethics 2004; 10(1): 23-28. [Further reference details] [Full text]

    10. Lo B, Field MJ (Ed). Conflict of Interest in Medical Research, Education, and Practice. Washington: National Academies Press; 2009. [Further reference details] [Full text]

    11. Nuffield Council on Bioethics. Public health: ethical issues. London: Nuffield Council on Bioethics; 2007. [Further reference details] [Full text]

    12. Snyder L; American College of Physicians Ethics, Professionalism, and Human Rights Committee. American College of Physicians Ethics Manual: Sixth edition. Ann Intern Med 2012; 156(1 Pt 2): 73-104. [Further reference details] [Full text]

    13. UK Screening Committee. Criteria for appraising the viability, effectiveness and appropriateness of a screening programme [online]. London: UK NSC. [Further reference details] [Full text]

    14. Uniform requirements for manuscripts submitted to biomedical journals: Writing and editing for biomedical publication. J Pharmacol Pharmacother 2010; 1(1): 42–58. [Further reference details] [Full text]

    15. Wager E, Wiffen PJ. Ethical issues in preparing and publishing systematic reviews. J Evid Based Med 2011; 4(2): 130-4. [Further reference details] [Full text]

    16. World Health Organization. Standards and Operational Guidance for Ethics Review of Health-Related Research with Human Participants. Geneva: WHO; 2011. [Further reference details] [Full text]

    17. World Medical Association. Medical Ethics manual. Ferney-Voltaire: WMA; 2009. [Further reference details] [Full text]

    18. World Medical Association. World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki: Ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. JAMA 2013; 310(20): 2191-2194. [Further reference details] [Full text]
    Total votes: 2238

    Guidance publications / Handbooks

    Author(s): 
    Last revised: 
    2014-06-03

    This sub-division presents a selection of reports on ethical analysis in HTA or reports with chapters on this topic:

    1. Assasi N, Schwartz L, Tarride JE, Campbell K, Goeree R. Methodological guidance documents for evaluation of ethical considerations in health technology assessment: A systematic review. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res 2014; 14(2): 203-20. [Further reference details] [Full text]

    2. Droste S, Gerhardus A, Kollek R. Methoden zur Erfassung ethischer Aspekte und gesellschaftlicher Wertvorstellungen in Kurz-HTA-Berichten: Eine internationale Bestandsaufnahme. Cologne: Deutsche Agentur für Health Technology Assessment des Deutschen Instituts für Medizinische Dokumentation und Information (DAHTA@DIMDI); 2003. [Further reference details] [Full text]

    3. European network for Health Technology Assessment (EUnetHTA). HTA Core Model® for Medical and Surgical Interventions v. 1.0r. Helsinki: Finohta; 2008. [Further reference details] [Full text]

    4. European network for Health Technology Assessment (EUnetHTA). HTA Core Model® for Diagnostic Technologies v. 1.0r. Helsinki: Finohta; 2008. [Further reference details] [Full text]

    5. European network for Health Technology Assessment (EUnetHTA). HTA Core Model for screening technologies: Version 1.0. Helsinki: Finohta; 2012. [Further reference details] [Full text]

    6. Hausmann A, Blasco JA. Elaboración y validación de instrumentos metodológicos para la evaluación de productos de las agencias de evaluación de tecnologías sanitarias: Manual para la Evaluación Ética en la Evaluación de Tecnologías Sanitarias. Madrid: Plan de Calidad para el SNS del MSC. Unidad de Evaluación de Tecnologías Sanitarias, Agencia Laín Entralgo; 2010. [Further reference details] [Full text]

    7. Haute Autorité de Santé. L’évaluation des aspects éthiques à la HAS. Guide methodologique. Paris: HAS; 2013. [Further reference details] [Full text

    8. Hofmann B. Etikk i vurdering av helsetiltak. Utvikling av en metode for å synliggjøre etiske utfordringer ved vurdering av helsetiltak. Oslo: Nasjonalt kunnskapssenter for helsetjenesten (NOKC); 2008. [Further reference details] [Full text]

    9. Kristensen FB, Sigmund H (ed). Health Technology Assessment Handbook. Copenhagen: Danish Centre for Health Technology Assessment (DACEHTA), National Board of Health; 2007. [Further reference details] [Full text]

    10. Statens beredning för medicinsk utvärdering. Utvärdering av metoder i hälso- och sjukvården: En handbok. Stockholm: SBU; 2013. [Further reference details] [Full text]
    Total votes: 1696

    Methods approaches

    Author(s): 
    Last revised: 
    2014-02-09

    This sub-division presents a selection of publications on the following methods approaches on ethical analysis in HTA:

    • Casuistry
    • Eclectic approach
    • EUnetHTA Core Models
    • Participatory approach
    • Principles approach
    • Social shaping of technology
    • Socratic approach (= Axiological approach)
    • Triangular approach
    • Wide reflective equilibrium
    1. Autti-Rämö I, Mäkelä M. Ethical evaluation in health technology assessment reports: An eclectic approach. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2007; 23: 1-8. [Further reference details] [Full text]

    2. Beauchamp TL, Childress JF. Principles of biomedical ethics. New York: Oxford University Press; 2013. [Further reference details] [Full text]

    3. Bombard Y, Abelson J, Simeonov D, Gauvin FP. Eliciting ethical and social values in health technology assessment: A participatory approach. Soc Sci Med 2011; 73: 135-144. [Further reference details] [Full text]

    4. Braunack-Mayer A. Casuistry as bioethical method: An empirical perspective. Soc Sci Med 2001; 53: 71-81. [Further reference details] [Full text]

    5. Burls A, Caron L, Cleret de Langavant G, Dondorp W, Harstall C, Pathak-Sen E, et al. Tackling ethical issues in health technology assessment: A proposed framework. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2011; 27: 230-237. [Further reference details] [Full text]

    6. Clausen C, Yoshinaka Y. Social shaping of technology in TA and HTA. Poiesis Prax 2004; 2: 221-246. [Further reference details] [Full text]

    7. Daniels N. Justice and justification: Reflective equilibrium in theory and practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1996. [Further reference details] [Full text]

    8. Douma KF, Karsenberg K, Hummel MJ, Bueno-de-Mesquita JM, van Harten WH. Methodology of constructive technology assessment in health care. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2007; 23: 162-168. [Further reference details] [Full text]

    9. Hofmann B, Droste S, Oortwijn W, Cleemput I, Sacchini D. Harmonization of ethics in health technology assessment: A revision of the socratic approach. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2014: 1-7. [Further reference details] [Full text]

    10. Hofmann B. Toward a procedure for integrating moral issues in health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2005; 21: 312-318. [Further reference details] [Full text]

    11. Hofmann B, Solbakk JH, Holm S. Teaching old dogs new tricks: The role of analogies in bioethical analysis and argumentation concerning new technologies. Theor Med Bioeth 2006; 27: 397-413. [Further reference details] [Full text]

    12. Kushner T, Belliotti RA, Buckner D. Toward a methodology for moral decision making in medicine. Theor Med 1991; 12: 281-293. [Further reference details] [Full text]

    13. Nichols P. Wide reflective equilibrium as a method of justification in bioethics. Theor Med Bioeth 2012; 33: 325-341. [Further reference details] [Full text]

    14. Reuzel R, Oortwijn W, Decker M, Clausen C, Gallo P, Grin J, et al. Ethics and HTA: Some lessons and challenges for the future. Poiesis Prax 2004; 2: 247-256. [Further reference details] [Full text]

    15. Reuzel RP, van der Wilt GJ, ten Have HA, de Vries Robbe PF. Interactive technology assessment and wide reflective equilibrium. J Med Philos 2001; 26: 245-261. [Further reference details] [Full text]

    16. Saarni SI, Braunack-Mayer A, Hofmann B, van der Wilt GJ. Different methods for ethical analysis in health technology assessment: An empirical study. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2011; 27: 305-312. [Further reference details] [Full text]

    17. Sacchini D, Virdis A, Refolo P, Pennacchini M, de Paula IC. Health technology assessment (HTA): Ethical aspects. Med Health Care Philos 2009; 12: 453-457. [Further reference details] [Full text]

    18. Strong C. Theoretical and practical problems with wide reflective equilibrium in bioethics. Theor Med Bioeth 2010; 31: 123-140. [Further reference details] [Full text]
    Total votes: 1831

    Preparing systematic reviews on ethical issues in health technologies

    Author(s): 
    Last revised: 
    2014-02-16

    This sub-division presents a selection of methodological publications on how to prepare systematic reviews on ethical issues in HTA:

    1. Droste S, Herrmann-Frank A, Scheibler F, Krones T. Ethical issues in autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) in advanced breast cancer: A systematic literature review. BMC Med Ethics 2011; 12: 6. [Further reference details] [Full text]

    2. McCullough LB, Coverdale JH, Chervenak FA. Constructing a systematic review for argument-based clinical ethics literature: The example of concealed medications. J Med Philos 2007; 32(1): 65-76. [Further reference details] [Full text]

    3. McDougall R. Systematic reviews in bioethics: Types, challenges, and value. J Med Philos 2014; 39(1): 89-97. [Further reference details] [Full text]

    4. Sofaer N, Strech D. The need for systematic reviews of reasons. Bioethics 2012; 26(6): 315-328. [Further reference details] [Full text]

    5. Strech D. How factual do we want the facts? Criteria for a critical appraisal of empirical research for use in ethics. J Med Ethics 2010; 36(4): 222-225. [Further reference details] [Full text]

    6. Strech D, Sofaer N. How to write a systematic review of reasons. J Med Ethics 2012; 38: 121-126. [Further reference details] [Full text]

    7. Strech D, Synofzik M, Marckmann G. Systematic reviews of empirical bioethics. J Med Ethics 2008; 34(6): 472-477. [Further reference details] [Full text]
    Total votes: 1629

    Organizational aspects

    <2014-01-08> This chapter will include a selection of Web resources for Organizational aspects
    Total votes: 1426

    Social aspects

    <2014-01-08> This chapter will include a selection of Web resources for Social aspects
    Total votes: 1350

    Legal aspects

    <2014-01-08> This chapter will include a selection of Web resources for Legal aspects
    Total votes: 1503