Basics of HTA

Author(s): 
Last revised: 
2014-05-24

This division presents a selection of methodological publications on the basics of Health Technology Assessment (HTA). Presented are publications on:

Total votes: 2113

Definitions

Author(s): 
Last revised: 
2014-05-31

This division presents a selection of publications on definitions and introductions to Health Technology Assessment (HTA):

  1. Health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2009; 25(Suppl 1): 10. [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  2. Banta D. What is technology assessment? Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2009; 25(Suppl 1): 7-9. [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  3. Bozic KJ, Pierce RG, Herndon JH. Health care technology assessment: Basic principles and clinical applications. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2004; 86-A(6): 1305-1314. [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  4. Corrao S, Arnone S, Sicurello F. La valutazione delle tecnologie sanitarie. Recenti Prog Med 2004; 95(11): 529-534. [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  5. Draborg E, Gyrd-Hansen D, Poulsen PB, Horder M. International comparison of the definition and the practical application of health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2005; 21(1): 89-95. [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  6. Eddy D. Health technology assessment and evidence-based medicine: What are we talking about? Value Health 2009; 12(Suppl 2): S6-S7. [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  7. Eisenberg JM. Ten lessons for evidence-based technology assessment. JAMA 1999; 282(19): 1865-1869. [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  8. Fleisher LA, Mantha S, Roizen MF. Medical technology assessment: An overview. Anesth Analg 1998; 87(6): 1271-1282. [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  9. Gallio D, Berto P. Health technology assessment (HTA): Definition, role and use in the changing healthcare environment. Eur Ann Allergy Clin Immunol 2007; 39(Spec No): 7-11. [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  10. Garattini L, Casadei G. Health technology assessment: For whom the bell tolls? Eur J Health Econ. 2008; 9(4): 311-312. [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  11. Glasser JH, Chrzanowski RS. Medical technology assessment: Adequate questions, appropriate methods, valuable answers. Health Policy 1988; 9(3): 267-276. [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  12. Glasziou P. Health technology assessment: An evidence-based medicine perspective. Med Decis Making 2012; 32(1): E20-E24. [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  13. Goodman CS. HTA 101: Introduction to Health Technology Assessment. Bethesda: National Information Center on Health Services Research and Health Care Technology (NICHSR); 2004. [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  14. Hailey D. Health technology assessment. Singapore Med J 2006; 47(3): 187-193. [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  15. Hillman BJ. The changing face of health technology assessment. J Am Coll Radiol 2009; 6(5): 289. [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  16. Nita ME, Secoli SR, Nobre M, Ono-Nita SK. Metodos de pesquisa em avaliacao de tecnologia em saude. Arq Gastroenterol. 2009; 46(4): 252-255. [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  17. O'Reilly D, Campbell K, Goeree R. Basics of health technology assessment. Methods Mol Biol 2009; 473: 263-283. [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  18. Papatheofanis FJ. Health technology assessment. Q J Nucl Med 2000; 44(2): 105-111. [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  19. Vallejos C, Bustos L, de la Puente C, Reveco R, Velásquez M, Zaror C. Principales aspectos metodologicos en la Evaluacion de Tecnologias Sanitarias. Rev Med Chil 2014;142(Suppl 1): 16-21. [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  20. Velasco Garrido M, Busse R. Health technology assessment: An introduction to objectives, role of evidence, and structure in Europe. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2005. [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  21. Wild C, Gartlehner G. Health Technology Assessment: Die Bewertung medizinischer Interventionen. Wien Med Wochenschr 2008; 158(17-18): 522-9. [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  22. Wulsin L, Dougherty A. A briefing on Health Technology Assessment. Sacramento: California Research Bureau; 2008. [Further reference details] [Full text]
Total votes: 2004

Glossaries

Author(s): 
Last revised: 
2014-05-20

This division presents a selection of glossaries on Health Technology Assessment (HTA):

  • EUnetHTA Adaptation Glossary

Responsibility: European network for Health Technology Assessment

  1. Chase D, Rosten C, Turner S, Hicks N, Milne R. Development of a toolkit and glossary to aid in the adaptation of health technology assessment (HTA) reports for use in different contexts. Health Technol Assess. 2009; 13(59): 1-142. [Further reference details] [Full text]

  2. Rosten C, Chase DL, Hicks NJ, Milne R; European network for Health Technology Assessment (EUnetHTA). Enhancing understanding: the development of a glossary of health technology assessment adaptation terms. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2009; 25 Suppl 2: 42-7. [Further reference details] [Full text]

[EUnetHTA Adaptation Glossary – search online] [EUnetHTA Adaptation Glossary – download pdf]

 

  •  HTAi consumer and patient glossary (A beginner’s guide to words used in health technology assessment)

Responsibility: Health Technology Assessment international

[HTAi consumer and patient glossary – download pdf]

 

  • HTA glossary.net

Responsibility: INAHTA, HTAi and others

[HTA glossary.net – search online]

 

  • INAHTA Health Technology Assessment glossary

Responsibility: International Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment

[INAHTA Health Technology Assessment glossary – search online]

 

  • NICHSR HTA 101 glossary

Responsibility:National Information Center on Health Services Research and Health Care Technology, National Library of Medicine

[NICHSR HTA 101 glossary – search online]

 

  • SWISSHTA glossary

Responsibility: Swiss Medical Association (FMH), Interpharma, Institute for Innovation and Valuation in Health Care (InnoVal), Swiss Academy of Medical Sciences (SAMW), santésuisse.

[SWISSHTA glossary – search online]

Total votes: 2077

HTA domains

Total votes: 2073

HTA Guides

Author(s): 
Last revised: 
2014-05-20

This division presents a selection of guidance publications and handbooks on Health Technology Assessment (HTA). For further context specific guidance publications please visit the division "Domains in HTA".

  1. Agency for Health Technology Assessment. Guidelines for conducting Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Warsaw: AHTAPol; 2007. [Further reference details] [Full text]

  2. Cicchetti A, Marchetti M. Manuale di health technology assessment. Roma: Pensiero scientifico; 2010. [Further reference details] [Full text]

  3. Corio M , Paone S , Ferroni E , Meier H , Jefferson T, Cerbo M. Systematic review of the methodological instruments used in Health Technology Assessment. Rome: Agenas; 2011. [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. Health Information and Quality Authority. Guidelines for Evaluating the Clinical Effectiveness of Health Technologies in Ireland. Dublin: HIQA; 2011. [Further reference details] [Full text]

  8. Health Intervention and Technology Assessment Program. Health Technology Assessment process guidelines. Nonthaburi: HITAP; 2012. [Further reference details] [Full text]

  9. Hermosilla Gago T, Grupo de Expertos de las Agencias de Evaluación de Tecnologías Sanitarias de España. Manual para adaptar informes de evaluacion de tecnologías sanitarias a los ciudadanos: Guidelines to produce citizen-friendly Health Technology Assessment reports. Sevilla: Agencia de Evaluación de Tecnologías Sanitarias de Andalucía (AETSA); 2007. [Further reference details] [Full text]

  10. 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]

  11. Ludwig Boltzmann Institut für Health Technology Assessment. Methodenhandbuch für Health Technology Assessment Version 1.2012. Wien: Gesundheit Österreich GmbH; 2012. [Further reference details] [Full text]

  12. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Guide to the methods of technology appraisal. London: NICE; 2008. [Further reference details] [Full text]

  13. Pan American Health Organization. Developing Health Technology Assessment in Latin America and the Caribbean. Washington, DC: PAHO; 1998. [Further reference details] [Full text]

  14. Panerai RB, Peña Mohr J. Health Technology Assessment methodologies for developing countries. Washington, DC: PAHO; 1989. [Further reference details] [Full text]

  15. Perleth M, Busse R, Gerhardus A, Gibis B, Lühmann D (ed). Health Technology Assessment: Konzepte, Methoden, Praxis für Wissenschaft und Entscheidungsfindung. Berlin: MWV, 2008. [Further reference details] [Full text]

  16. Raad voor Gezondheidsonderzoek. Medical technology assessment: Deel 1. Inventarisatie van MTA-onderzoek en een aanzet tot coördinatie. Den Haag: RGO, 1998. [Further reference details] [Full text]

  17. Radlberger P, Zechmeister I. IFEDH: Innovative Framework for Evidence based Decision making in Health care. Principles of standardised work in HTA (WP1.2). Vienna: Ludwig Boltzmann Institut für Health Technology Assessment (LBI-HTA); 2011. [Further reference details] [Full text]

  18. Ricciardi W, La Torre G. Health technology Assessment: Principi, dimensioni e strumenti. Torino: SEEd; 2010. [Further reference details] [Full text]

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

  20. World Health Organization. Health technology Assessment of medical devices. Geneva: WHO 2011. [Further reference details] [Full text]
Total votes: 2075

HTA implementation

<2014-01-08> This chapter will include a selection of resources HTA implementation
Total votes: 2122

Dissemination of HTA reports

Total votes: 1806

HTA in context

<2014-01-08> This chapter will include a selection of resources in the followng categories

Total votes: 2070

HTA Networks

Total votes: 2036

HTA and its relatives

Author(s): 
Last revised: 
2014-05-24

Around Health Technology Assessment there does exist a multitude of related disciplines, products, procedures etc. This sub-division presents selected methodological publications on these relatives and their differences as well as commonalitiies to Health Technology Assessment. It is divided in

Total votes: 1954

HTA and related disciplines (e.g. Evidence-based Medicine)

Author(s): 
Last revised: 
2014-06-03

This sub-division presents selected publications on the differences and commonalities of Health Technology Assessment (HTA) and Evidence-based Medicine (EbM):

  1. Abalos E, Carroli G, Mackey ME. The tools and techniques of evidence-based medicine. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol 2005; 19(1): 15-26. [Further reference details] [Full text]

  2. Eddy D. Health technology assessment and evidence-based medicine: What are we talking about? Value Health 2009; 12(Suppl 2): S6-7. [Further reference details] [Full text]

  3. Kelly MP, Moore TA. The judgement process in evidence-based medicine and health technology assessment. Soc Theory Health 2012; 10(1): 1-19. [Further reference details] [Full text] 

  4. Lambert H. Accounting for EBM: Notions of evidence in medicine. Soc Sci Med 2006; 62(11): 2633-2645.[Further reference details] [Full text] 

  5. Luce BR, Drummond M, Jönsson B, Neumann PJ, Schwartz JS, Siebert U, et al. EBM, HTA, and CER: Clearing the confusion. Milbank Q 2010; 88(2): 256-276. [Further reference details] [Full text]

  6. Manchikanti L. Evidence-based medicine, systematic reviews, and guidelines in interventional pain management: Part I. Introduction and general considerations. Pain Physician 2008; 11(2): 161-186. [Further reference details] [Full text]

  7. O'Donnell JC, Pham SV, Pashos CL, Miller DW, Smith MD. Health technology assessment: Lessons learned from around the world: An overview. Value Health 2009; 12(Suppl 2): S1-S5. [Further reference details] [Full text]

  8. Pinson N, Thielke A, King V. Health Technology Assessment. Portland: Center for Evidence-based Policy; 2011. [Further reference details] [Full text]

  9. Sackett DL, Rosenberg WM, Gray JA, Haynes RB, Richardson WS. Evidence based medicine: What it is and what it isn’t. BMJ 1996; 312(7023): 71-72. [Further reference details] [Full text]

  10. Sauerland S. Die kritische Rolle wissenschaftlicher Evidenz im Rahmen von Health Technology Assessment. Bundesgesundheitsblatt Gesundheitsforschung Gesundheitsschutz 2006; 49(3): 251-256. [Further reference details] [Full text]

  11. Smith R, Rennie D. Evidence-based medicine: An oral history. JAMA 2014; 311(4): 365-367. [Further reference details] [Full text]
Total votes: 2052

HTA and related assessment procedures (e.g. comparative effectiveness research, CER)

Author(s): 
Last revised: 
2014-06-07

This sub-division presents a selection of publications on HTA-related assessment processes. Some of these related methods are part of HTA. Related assessment processes are for example:

  • Comparative effectiveness research,
  • Constructive Technology Assessment,
  • Parliamentary Technology Assessment,
  • Participatory Technology Assessment.

Comparative Effectiveness Research (CER)

  1. European network for Health Technology Assessment (EUnetHTA), Joint Action WP5. HTA Core Model® for Rapid Relative Effectiveness Assessment of Pharmaceuticals. Brussels: EUnetHTA; 2013. [Further reference details] [Full text]

  2. Falissard B, Izard V, Xerri B, Bouvenot G, Meyer F, Degos L. Relative effectiveness assessment of listed drugs (REAL): A new method for an early comparison of the effectiveness of approved health technologies. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2010; 26(1): 124-130. [Further reference details] [Full text]

  3. Hao Y, Thomas A. Health technology assessment and comparative effectiveness research: A pharmaceutical industry perspective. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res 2013; 13(4): 447-54. [Further reference details] [Full text]

  4. Kleijnen S, George E, Goulden S, d'Andon A, Vitré P, Osińska B, et al. Relative effectiveness assessment of pharmaceuticals: Similarities and differences in 29 jurisdictions. Value Health 2012; 15(6): 954-960. [Further reference details] [Full text]

  5. Kleijnen S, Goettsch W, d’Andon A, Vitre P, George E, Goulden S, et al. EUnetHTA JA WP5: Relative Effectiveness Assessment (REA) of Pharmaceuticals: Background review. Version 5B. Brussels: EUnetHTA; 2011. [Further reference details] [Full text]

  6. Luce BR, Drummond M, Jönsson B, Neumann PJ, Schwartz JS, Siebert U, et al. EBM, HTA, and CER: Clearing the confusion. Milbank Q 2010; 88(2): 256-276. [Further reference details] [Full text]

  7. Manchikanti L, Falco FJ, Boswell MV, Hirsch JA. Facts, fallacies, and politics of comparative effectiveness research: Part I. Basic considerations. Pain Physician 2010; 13(1): E23-E54. [Further reference details] [Full text]

  8. Manchikanti L, Falco FJ, Boswell MV, Hirsch JA. Facts, fallacies, and politics of comparative effectiveness research: Part 2 - implications for interventional pain management. Pain Physician. 2010 Jan;13(1):E55-E79. [Further reference details] [Full text]

Constructive Technology Assessment

  1. 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(2): 162-168. [Further reference details] [Full text]

Parliamentary Technology Assessment

  1. European Parliamentary Technology Assessment. Parliamentary Technology Assessment in Europe: An overview of 17 institutions and how they work. EPTA; 2012. [Further reference details] [Full text]

  2. Simonis G (ed). Konzepte und Verfahren der Technikfolgenabschätzung. Wiesbaden: Springer VS; 2013. [Further reference details] [Full text]

Participatory Technology Assessment

  1. Decker M (ed). Interdisciplinarity in Technology Assessment: Implementation and its chances and limits. Berlin: Springer; 2001. [Further reference details] [Full text]

  2. Guston DH. Participating despite questions: Toward a more confident Participatory Technology Assessment. Sci Eng Ethics 2011; 17(4): 691-697. [Further reference details] [Full text]

  3. Hansen J. Operationalising the public in participatory technology assessment: A framework for comparison applied to three cases. Sci Public Policy 2006; 33(8): 571-584 . [Further reference details] [Full text]

  4. Hennen L. Why do we still need participatory technology assessment? Poiesis Prax 2012; 9(1-2): 27-41. [Further reference details] [Full text]

  5. Ornetzeder M, Kastenhofer K. Old problems, new directions and upcoming requirements in participatory technology assessment. Poiesis Prax 2012; 9(1-2): 1-5. [Further reference details] [Full text]

  6. Menon D, Stafinski T. Role of patient and public participation in health technology assessment and coverage decisions. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res 2011; 11(1): 75-89. [Further reference details] [Full text]

  7. Saretzki T. Legitimation problems of participatory processes in technology assessment and technology policy. Poiesis Prax 2012; 9(1-2): 7-26. [Further reference details] [Full text]

  8. Viswanathan M, Ammerman A, Eng E, Gartlehner G, Lohr KN, Griffith D, et al. Community-Based Participatory Research: Assessing the Evidence. Rockville: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ); 2004. [Further reference details] [Full text
Total votes: 2135

HTA and related products (e.g. Cochrane Reviews)

Author(s): 
Last revised: 
2014-06-04

Besides the multitude of existing HTA products a multitude of related products does exist too. Based on the philosophies of different disciplines or specialties, contexts, purposes, institutional aims etc. the diverse related products were developped. These are for example:

  • Cochrane reviews, Campbell reviews, JBI reviews,
  • Systematic reviews,
  • Clinical practice guidelines.

This sub-division presents selected publications on these related products, and on their commonalities and differences to HTA reports:

  1. Antes G. Die Evidenz-Basis von klinischen Leitlinien, Health Technology Assessments und Patienteninformation als Grundlage für Entscheidungen in der Medizin. Z Arztl Fortbild Qualitatssich 2004; 98(3): 180-4; discussion 190-2, 214-5. [Further reference details] [Full text]

  2. Armstrong R, Waters E, Jackson N, Oliver S, Popay J, Shepherd J, et al. Guidelines for systematic reviews of health promotion and public health interventions: Version 2. Melbourne: University; 2007. [Further reference details] [Full text]

  3. Chandler J, Hopewell S. Cochrane methods: Twenty years experience in developing systematic review methods. Syst Rev 2013; 2: 76. [Further reference details] [Full text]

  4. Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York. Systematic Reviews. CRD’s guidance for undertaking reviews in health care. York: CRD: 2009. [Further reference details] [Full text]

  5. Connis RT, Nickinovich DG, Caplan RA, Arens JF. The development of evidence-based clinical practice guidelines: Integrating medical science and practice. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2000; 16(4): 1003-1012. [Further reference details] [Full text]

  6. Cook DJ, Greengold NL, Ellrodt AG, Weingarten SR. The relation between systematic reviews and practice guidelines. Ann Intern Med 1997; 127(3): 210-6. [Further reference details] [Full text]

  7. Davies P, Boruch R. The Campbell Collaboration: Does for public policy what Cochrane does for health. BMJ 2001; 323(7308): 294-5. [Further reference details] [Full text]

  8. Fox DM. Increasing effective policy and practice: Challenges in applying the findings of Cochrane reviews. J Health Serv Res Policy 2013; 18(1): 3-4. [Further reference details] [Full text]

  9. Gough D, Thomas J, Oliver S. Clarifying differences between review designs and methods. Syst Rev 2012; 1: 28. [Further reference details] [Full text]

  10. Higgins JPT, Green S (ed). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. Oxford: The Cochrane Collaboration; 2011. [Further reference details] [Full text]

  11. Jadad AR, Cook DJ, Jones A, Klassen TP, Tugwell P, Moher M, Moher D. Methodology and reports of systematic reviews and meta-analyses: A comparison of Cochrane reviews with articles published in paper-based journals. JAMA 1998; 280(3): 278-280. [Further reference details] [Full text]

  12. Jamtvedt G. Systematiske oversikter om effekt av tiltak. Norsk Epidemiologi 2013; 23(2): 119-124. [Further reference details] [Full text]

  13. Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI). Reviewers’ Manual. Adelaide: The Joanna Briggs Institute, University of Adelaide; 2014. [Further reference details] [Full text]

  14. Mallett S, Clarke M. The typical Cochrane review: How many trials? How many participants? Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2002; 18(4): 820-823. [Further reference details] [Full text]

  15. Manchikanti L. Evidence-based medicine, systematic reviews, and guidelines in interventional pain management: Part I. Introduction and general considerations. Pain Physician 2008; 11(2): 161-186. [Further reference details] [Full text]

  16. Moat KA, Lavis JN, Wilson MG, Røttingen JA, Bärnighausen T. Twelve myths about systematic reviews for health system policymaking rebutted. J Health Serv Res Policy 2013; 18(1): 44-50. [Further reference details] [Full text

  17. Nordic Campbell Center. How to make a Campbell Collaboration Review: The Review. Copenhagen: NC2; no year. [Further reference details] [Full text]

  18. Perleth M, Jakubowski E, Busse R. „Best Practice“ im Gesundheitswesen: Oder warum wir evidenzbasierte Medizin, Leitlinien und Health Technology Assessment brauchen. Z Arztl Fortbild Qualitatssich 2000; 94(9): 741-744. [Further reference details] [Full text]

  19. Rotstein D, Laupacis A. Differences between systematic reviews and health technology assessments: A trade-off between the ideals of scientific rigor and the realities of policy making. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2004; 20(2): 177-183. [Further reference details] [Full text]

  20. Shea B, Moher D, Graham I, Pham B, Tugwell P. A comparison of the quality of Cochrane reviews and systematic reviews published in paper-based journals. Eval Health Prof 2002; 25(1): 116-129. [Further reference details] [Full text]

  21. Shemilt I, Mugford M, Drummond M, Eisenstein E, Mallender J, McDaid D, et al. Economics methods in Cochrane systematic reviews of health promotion and public health related interventions. BMC Med Res Methodol 2006; 6: 55. [Further reference details] [Full text]
Total votes: 2125

HTA in practice

Author(s): 
Last revised: 
2014-06-02

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

  1. Banta D. The development of health technology assessment. Health Policy 2003; 63(2): 121-132. [Further reference details] [Full text]

  2. Banta D. Health technology assessment in Latin America and the Caribbean. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2009; 25(Suppl 1): 253-254. [Further reference details] [Full text]

  3. Banta D, Oortwijn W. Health technology assessment and health care in the European Union. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2000; 16(2): 626-635. [Further reference details] [Full text]

  4. Blume SS. Assessing health technologies in a changing world. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2009; 25(Suppl 1): 276-280. [Further reference details] [Full text]

  5. Buskens E. “Medical technology assessment”: Er is meer dan alleen werkzaamheid. Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd 2000; 144(13): 622-626. [Further reference details] [Full text]

  6. Busse R, Orvain J, Velasco M, Perleth M, Drummond M, Gürtner F, et al. Best practice in undertaking and reporting health technology assessments: Working group 4 report. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2002; 18(2): 361-422. [Further reference details] [Full text]

  7. Cookson R,  Maynard A. Health technology assessment in Europe: Improving clarity and performance. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2000; 16(2): 639-650. [Further reference details] [Full text]

  8. Draborg E, Andersen CK. Recommendations in health technology assessments worldwide. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2006; 22(2): 155-160. [Further reference details] [Full text]

  9. Draborg E, Andersen CK. What influences the choice of assessment methods in health technology assessments? Statistical analysis of international health technology assessments from 1989 to 2002. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2006; 22(1): 19-25. [Further reference details] [Full text]

  10. Draborg E, Gyrd-Hansen D. Time-trends in health technology assessments: An analysis of developments in composition of international health technology assessments from 1989 to 2002. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2005; 21(4): 492-498. [Further reference details] [Full text]

  11. Draborg E, Gyrd-Hansen D, Poulsen PB, Horder M. International comparison of the definition and the practical application of health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2005; 21(1): 89-95. [Further reference details] [Full text]

  12. García-Altés A, Ondategui-Parra S, Neumann PJ. Cross-national comparison of technology assessment processes. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2004; 20(3): 300-310. [Further reference details] [Full text]

  13. Giovagnoni A, Bartolucci L, Manna A, Morbiducci J, Ascoli G. Health technology assessment: Principles, methods and current status. Radiol Med 2009; 114(5): 673-691. [Further reference details] [Full text]

  14. Goodman CS. Healthcare technology assessment: Methods, framework, and role in policy making. Am J Manag Care 1998; 4(Spec No):  SP200-SP215. [Further reference details] [Full text]

  15. Goodman CS., Ahn R. Methodological approaches of health technology assessment. Int J Med Inform 1999; 56(1-3): 97-105. [Further reference details] [Full text]

  16. International Working Group for HTA Advancement, Neumann PJ, Drummond MF, Jönsson B, Luce BR, Schwartz JS, et al. Are key principles for improved health technology assessment supported and used by health technology assessment organizations? Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2010; 26(1): 71-78. [Further reference details] [Full text]

  17. Kristensen FB. Health technology assessment in Europe. Scand J Public Health 2009; 37(4): 335-339. [Further reference details] [Full text]

  18. Kuhn-Barrientos L. Evaluacion de Tecnologias Sanitarias: Marco conceptual y perspectiva global. Rev Med Chil 2014; 142 (Suppl 1): 11-15. [Further reference details] [Full text]

  19. Lange M, Jørgensen T, Kristensen FB, Stilvén S. The concept of health technology assessment: Views of applicants to funding of HTA projects. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2000; 16(4): 1201-1209. [Further reference details] [Full text]

  20. Martelli F, La Torre G, Di Ghionno E, Staniscia T, Neroni M, Cicchetti A, et al. Health technology assessment agencies: An international overview of organizational aspects. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2007; 23(4): 414-424. [Further reference details] [Full text]

  21. Neumann PJ. Lessons for health technology assessment: It is not only about the evidence. Value Health 2009; 12(Suppl 2): S45-S48. [Further reference details] [Full text]

  22. Oortwijn W, Broos P, Vondeling H, Banta D, Todorova L. Mapping of health technology assessment in selected countries. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2013; 29(4): 424-434. [Further reference details] [Full text]

  23. Perry S, Gardner E, Thamer M. The status of health technology assessment worldwide: Results of an international survey. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 1997; 13(1): 81-98. [Further reference details] [Full text]

  24. Poulsen PB, Hørder M. Medicinsk teknologivurdering i praksis. Ugeskr Laeger 1998; 24; 160(35): 5041-5044. [Further reference details] [Full text]

  25. Rettig RA. Health care in transition: Technology assessment in the private sector. Santa Monica: RAND; 1997. [Further reference details] [Full text]

  26. Sivalal S. Health technology assessment in the Asia Pacific region. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2009; 25(Suppl S1): 196–201. [Further reference details] [Full text]

  27. Stephens JM, Handke B, Doshi JA. International survey of methods used in health technology assessment (HTA): Does practice meet the principles proposed for good research? Comparative Effectiveness Research 2012; 2: 29–44. [Further reference details] [Full text]

  28. Stevens A, Milne R, Burls A. Health technology assessment: History and demand. J Public Health Med 2003; 25(2): 98-101. [Further reference details] [Full text]

  29. Tantivess S. Policy making and roles of health technology assessment. J Med Assoc Thai 2008; 91(Suppl 2): S88-S99. [Further reference details] [Full text]

  30. Velasco Garrido M, Busse R. Health technology assessment: An introduction to objectives, role of evidence, and structure in Europe. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2005. [Further reference details] [Full text]

  31. Velasco Garrido M, Kristensen FB, Palmhøj Nielsen C, Busse R. Health technology assessment and health policy-making in Europe: Current status, challenges and potential. Copenhagen: World Health Organization, The European Observatory on Health Systems and Policies; 2008. [Further reference details] [Full text]
Total votes: 1760

HTA products

Author(s): 
Last revised: 
2014-05-24

A multitude of HTA products does exist. This sub-didvision presents selected publications on the different types of products, regarding their

  • comprehensiveness
  • relation to the life cycle status of the technology
  • context / setting.
Total votes: 1871

The history of HTA

Author(s): 
Last revised: 
2014-05-24

This sub-division presents selected publications on the history of HTA. Additionally there does exist a huge amount of publications on the history and the current practice of HTA in specific countries or regions. Please, visit the country of interest in the vortal section "HTA agencies and networks" to read the information.

  1. Banta HD. Health care technology and its assessment in eight countries. Washington, DC: Office of Technology Assessment, United States Congress: 1995. [Further reference details] [Full text]

  2. Banta HD. The development of health technology assessment. Health Policy 2003; 63(2): 121-32. [Further reference details] [Full text]

  3. Banta HD, Jonsson E. History of HTA: Introduction. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2009; 25 (Suppl 1): 1-6. [Further reference details] [Full text]

  4. Banta D, Kristensen FB, Jonsson E. A history of health technology assessment at the European level. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2009; 25(Suppl 1): 68-73. [Further reference details] [Full text]

  5. Banta HD, Luce BR. Health care technology and its assessment: An international perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1993. [Further reference details] [Full text]

  6. Banta HD, Perry S. A history of ISTAHC: A personal perspective on its first 10 years. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 1997; 13(3): 430-453. [Further reference details] [Full text]

  7. Battista RN, Hodge MJ. The "natural history" of health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2009; 25 (Suppl 1): 281-284. [Further reference details] [Full text]

  8. Canadian Coordinating Office for Health Technology Assessment. An international inventory of health care technology assessment reports and projects. Ottawa: CCOHTA; 1992. [Further reference details] [Full text]

  9. Eisenberg JM, Zarin D. Health technology assessment in the United States. Past, present, and future. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2002; 18(2): 192-8. [Further reference details] [Full text]

  10. Jonsson E. Development of health technology assessment in Europe: A personal perspective. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2002; 18(2): 171-183. [Further reference details] [Full text]

  11. Liberati A, Sheldon TA, Banta HD. EUR-ASSESS Project Subgroup report on Methodology: Methodological guidance for the conduct of health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 1997; 13(2): 186-219. [Further reference details] [Full text]

  12. Luce B, Singer Cohen R. Health technology assessment in the United States. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2009; 25(Suppl 1): 33-41. [Further reference details] [Full text]

  13. Oliver A, Mossialos E, Robinson R. Health technology assessment and its influence on health-care priority setting. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2004; 20(1): 1-10. [Further reference details] [Full text]

  14. Poulsen PB. An international comparison of health technology assessment. Odense: Centre for Health and Social Policy, Odense University; 1997. [Further reference details] [Full text]

  15. Shemer J, Shani M, Tamir O, Siebzehner MI. Health technology management in Israel: HTA in action. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2009; 25(Suppl 1): 134-139. [Further reference details] [Full text]

  16. Sivalal S. History of health technology assessment: A commentary. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2009; 25(Suppl 1): 285-7. [Further reference details] [Full text]

  17. Sorenson C, Chalkidou K. Reflections on the evolution of health technology assessment in Europe. Health Econ Policy Law 2012; 7(1): 25-45. [Further reference details] [Full text]

  18. Stevens A, Milne R, Burls A. Health technology assessment: History and demand. J Public Health Med 2003; 25(2): 98-101. [Further reference details] [Full text]
Total votes: 1860

Tools

Total votes: 2087