Smjernice za HTA i ekonomske analize u zdravstvu

Popis relevantnih publikacija koje se odnose na metodološke aspekte HTA  (na engleskom jeziku).

HTA Guidelines
  1. NHS National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Guide to the methods of technology appraisal, 2008.
  2. NHS National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Guide to the single technology appraisal process, 2009.
  3. NHS National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Guide to the multiple technology appraisal process, 2009.
  4. The Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH). Guidelines for Authors of CADTH Health Technology Assessment Reports, 2003.
  5. Cleemput I, Van Den Bruel A, Kohn L, Vlayen J, Vinck I, Thiry N, et al. Search for Evidence & Critical Appraisal: Health Technology Assessment (HTA). Brussels: Belgian Health Care Knowledge Centre (KCE); 2007. KCE Process notes (D2007/10.273/40)
  6. EUnetHTA documents: HTA Core Model for Medical and Surgical Interventions, and HTA Core Model for Diagnostic Technologies, https://fio.stakes.fi/htacore/handbook.html
  7. EUnetHTA Adaptation Toolkit, http://www.eunethta.net/upload/WP5/EUnetHTA_HTA_Adaptation_Toolkit_October08.pdf
METHODOLOGY REFERENCE
Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses of Clinical Effectiveness Studies
  1. Higgins JPT, Green S (editors). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.0.2 [updated September 2009]. The Cochrane Collaboration, 2009. Available from  www.cochrane-handbook.org.
  2. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Diagnostic Test Accuracy, Available from http://srdta.cochrane.org/handbook-dta-reviews
  3. Egger M, Smith GD, Altman DG. Systematic reviews in health care: meta-analysis in context. 2nd ed. London: BMJ Publishing; 2001.
  4. Khan KS, ter Riet G, Glanville J, Sowden aJ, KeijnenJ, editors. Undertaking systematic reviews of research on effectiveness: CRD's guidance for those carrying out or commissioning reviews. 2nd ed. York (UK): NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York;2001. CRD reportno. 4. Available: http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/crd/report4.htm
  5. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, The PRISMA Group Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement. PLoS Med. 2009;6(7): e1000097.
  6. Stroup DF, Berlin JA, Morton SC, Olkin I, Williamson GD, Rennie D, et al. Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting. Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) group. JAMA. 2000;283:2008-12.
  7. Bossuyt PM et al.The Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy (STARD) Group.The STARD Statement for Reporting Studies of Diagnostic Accuracy: Explanation and Elaboration. Croat Med J. 2003;44:639-50.
  8. Von Elm et al. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Statement: Guidelines for Reporting Observational Studies. Ann Intern Med. 2007;147:573-77.
  9. Vandenbroucke JP et al. Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE): Explanation and Elaboration. Ann Intern Med.;147:W-163-W-194. http://www.equator-network.org/, http://www.consort-statement.org/
  10. INAHTA checklist for the appraisal of HTA reports: http://www.dimdi.de/static/de/hta/methoden/sammlung/inahtachecklist.pdf
Economic Evaluations
  1. Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health. Guidelines for the economic evaluation of health technologies: Canada [Internet]. 3rd ed. Ottawa: Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health; 2006. vii, 46, A-17 p. [cited 2009 Oct 20]. Available from: http://www.cadth.ca/media/pdf/186_EconomicGuidelines_e.pdf
  2. Mittmann N, Evans WK, Rocchi A, Longo CJ, Au H.-J, 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.
  3. Drummond MF, Sculpher MK, Torrance GW, O'Brien BJ, Stoddart GL. Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes. 3rd ed. London: Oxford University Press; 2009.
  4. Wells GA, Sultan SA, Chen L, Khan M, Coyle D. Indirect Evidence: Indirect Treatment Comparisons in Meta-Analysis [Internet]. Ottawa: Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health; 2009. 92 p. [cited 2009Nov 3]. (Technology report). Available from: http://www.cadth.ca/index.php/en/hta/reportspublications/search/publication/884 
  5. Consensus conference on economic modelling in health technology assessment; 1999 Apr 22-23; Sheffield, England. Pharmacoeconomics 2000;17(5):443-513.
  6. Drummond MF, McGuire A. Economic evaluation in health care: merging theory with practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2001.