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: 5620