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

Last revised: 

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: 9453