a toolkit for hospital-based health technology · pdf filea toolkit for hospital-based health...

A Toolkit for hospital-based Health Technology Assessment

HB-HTA Toolkit > DIMENSION 1: The assessment process > Guiding Principle 2: HB-HTA report: methods, tools and transferability

Tool 8 Links to relevant methodological guidance and databases

What is this tool for?

The assessment process has to combine relevant information coming from suitable,

internationally recognised methodological approaches, tools and quality requirements

in the management and production of health technology assessment in hospitals.

This tool provides links to the best relevant methodological guidance and databases to

be chosen for the assessment.

Who is this tool for?

The tool was designed for the use of HB-HTA units and other bodies responsible for

delivering assessments of health technologies for use in hospitals.

How to cite the Toolkit: AdHopHTA partners. The AdHopHTA toolkit: a toolkit for hospital-based Health Technology Assessment (HB-HTA); Public deliverable, The AdHopHTA Project (FP7/2007-13 grant agreement nr 305018); 2015. Available from: http://www.adhophta.eu/toolkit

http://www.adhophta.eu/toolkit



Links to relevant methodological guidance and databases

LITERATURE SEARCH

I. Methodological guidance on search strategy

The Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Review of Interventions (2011).

Chapter 6 “Searching for studies”.

Summarized Research in Information Retrieval for HTA (SuRe Info) on HTAi Vortal platform.

Sources for search strategy development.

Etext on Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Information Resources.

Canadian Coordinating Office for Health Technology Assessment, National Information Center on Health Services Research & Health Care Technology and National Library of Medicine.

Goodman C. S. HTA 101: VII. Retrieve Evidence.

National Information Center on Health Services Research and Health Care Technology (NICHSR) website.

Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies.

Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH), 2008.

Grey Matters: a practical search tool for evidence-based medicine.


Development and Testing of Search Filters to Identify Economic Evaluations in MEDLINE and EMBASE.


Methods Guide for Effectiveness and Comparative Effectiveness Reviews. Finding Grey Literature Evidence and Assessing for Outcome and Analysis Reporting Biases When Comparing Medical Interventions: AHRQ and the Effective Health Care Program.

Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), 2013.

Reporting methodological search filter performance comparisons: a literature review.

Health Information & Libraries Journal, 31, pp. 176–194.

II. Search strategy examples

PubMed Tutorial.

Protocol for systematic reviews of determinants/correlates of obesity-related dietary and physical activity behaviors in young children (preschool 0 to 6 years): evidence mapping and syntheses.

Systematic Reviews 2013, 2:28.

Article: Constructing a Search Strategy and Searching for Evidence. A guide to the literature search for a systematic review.

The Joanna Briggs Institute.

http://handbook.cochrane.org/chapter_6/6_searching_for_studies.htm

http://vortal.htai.org/?q=node/790

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/archive/20060905/nichsr/ehta/ehta.html

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/nichsr/hta101/ta10109.html

http://www.cadth.ca/media/pdf/477_PRESS-Peer-Review-Electronic-Search-Strategies_tr_e.pdf

http://www.cadth.ca/media/pdf/477_PRESS-Peer-Review-Electronic-Search-Strategies_tr_Appendices.pdf

http://www.cadth.ca/en/resources/finding-evidence-is/grey-matters

http://www.cadth.ca/media/pdf/H0490_Search_Filters_for_Economic_Evaluations_mg_e.pdf

http://www.effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/ehc/products/486/1751/methods-guidance-reporting-bias-131118.pdf

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/hir.12070/pdf

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/bsd/disted/pubmed.html

http://www.systematicreviewsjournal.com/content/pdf/2046-4053-2-28.pdf

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24759479



QUALITY ASSESMENT OF CLINICAL STUDIES

I. Methodological guidance

Goodman C. S. HTA 101: III. Primary data studies. National Information Center on Health Services Research and Health Care Technology (NICHSR) via U.S. National Library of Medicine.

Development and validation of methods for assessing the quality of diagnostic accuracy studies. Health Technology Assessment NHS R&D HTA Programme, Health Technology Assessment 2004; Vol. 8: No. 25.

Quality Checklist for Health Care Intervention Studies. National Collaborating Centre for Methods and Tools.

II. Assessing the quality of a single study

RANDOMISED CONTROLLED TRIALS Risk of bias

Assessing the Risk of Bias of Individual Studies in Systematic Reviews of Health Care Interventions.

Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ).

Methods Guide for Comparative Effectiveness Reviews. Avoiding Bias in Selecting Studies.


Assessing risk of bias in included studies.

The Cochrane Collaboration.

The Cochrane Collaboration´s tool for assessing risk of bias.


Article: The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomized trials.

British Medical Journal (2011); 343.

RANDOMISED CONTROLLED TRIALS JADAD scale

Article: Scales to Assess the Quality of Randomized Controlled Trials.

A systematic review. PHYS THER. 2008; 88:156-175.

Article: Assessing the Quality of Randomized Trials: Reliability of the Jadad Scale.

Controlled Clinical Trials 20(5): 448–452(1999).

Article: Assessing the Quality of Reports of Randomized Clinical Trials: Is blinding necessary?

Controlled Clinical Trials 17:1-12 (1996).

RANDOMISED CONTROLLED TRIALS Other checklists

Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP): Randomised Controlled Trail Checklist.

Scottish Intercollegiate Guideline Network (SIGN): Critical Appraisal–Notes and Checklist 2: Randomized

Control Trials.

Critical Appraisal Sheet tool for RCTs´. Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine (CEBM).

Article: Using and Reporting the Delphi Method for Selecting Healthcare Quality Indicators: A Systematic Review. PLoS One. 2011; 6(6): e20476.

Article: The Delphi List. A Criteria List for Quality Assessment of Randomized Clinical Trials for Conducting Systematic Reviews

Developed by Delphi Consensus.

Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, Volume 51, Issue 12, December 1998, Pages 1235–1241.

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/nichsr/hta101/ta10105.html#Heading3

http://www.journalslibrary.nihr.ac.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/64994/FullReport-hta8250.pdf

http://www.nccmt.ca/registry/view/eng/9.html

http://effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/ehc/products/322/998/MethodsGuideforCERs_Viswanathan_IndividualStudies.pdf

http://www.effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/ehc/products/321/1404/CER-Methods-Guide-Avoiding-Bias-Selecting-Studies-130202.pdf

http://handbook.cochrane.org/chapter_8/8_assessing_risk_of_bias_in_included_studies.htm

http://ohg.cochrane.org/sites/ohg.cochrane.org/files/uploads/Risk%20of%20bias%20assessment%20tool.pdf

http://www.bmj.com/content/343/bmj.d5928.full.pdf+html

http://ptjournal.apta.org/content/88/2/156.full.pdf+html

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0197245699000264

http://www.prosit.de/images/3/36/Assessing_the_Quality_of_Reports_of_Randomized_Clinical_Trials_Is_Blinding_Necessary.pdf

http://media.wix.com/ugd/dded87_c7984187fdc74d25a3fba6c707383b15.pdf

http://www.sign.ac.uk/methodology/checklists.html

http://www.cebm.net/critical-appraisal/

http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0020476




OBSERVATIONAL STUDIES Newcastle-Ottawa checklist

Newcastle-Ottawa scale for assessing quality of a cohort study. The Cochrane Collaboration supplementary material, chapter 13.

The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) quality assessment scale for cohort studies.

The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) manual for case-control studies and quality assessment scale for case-control studies.

OBSERVATIONAL STUDIES STrengthening the Reporting of OBservational studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) checklist

STROBE checklist for observational studies.

STROBE checklist for cohort, case-control, and cross-sectional studies (medicine requirements).

STROBE Checklist for cohort studies.

STROBE Checklist for case-control studies.

STROBE Checklist for cross-sectional studies.

OBSERVATIONAL STUDIES Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) checklist

Case Control Checklist.

Cohort Checklist.

Diagnostic Checklist.

Clinical Prediction Checklist.

Qualitative Checklist.

OBSERVATIONAL STUDIES Scottish Intercollegiate Guideline Network (SIGN) checklist

Critical Appraisal Notes and Checklist for: cohort studies.

Critical Appraisal Notes and Checklist for: case-control studies.

Critical Appraisal Notes and Checklist for: diagnostic studies.

OBSERVATIONAL STUDIES Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine (CEBM)

Critical Appraisal Sheet tool for Prognostic studies.

Critical Appraisal Sheet tool for Diagnostic accuracy studies.

Critical Appraisal Sheet tool for Therapy studies.

III. External validity of studies

METHODOLOGICAL BACKGROUND

Assessing generalisability (external validity) of evidence to practice.

National Collaborating Centre for Methods and Tools.

Article: External Validity and Model Validity: A Conceptual Approach for Systematic Review Methodology.

Evidence-Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine, Volume 2014 (2014).

Article: Assessment of generalisability in trials of health interventions: suggested framework and systematic review.

British Medical Journal (2006); 333:346.

Click to see: The Cochrane Collaboration background for

including non-randomized studies

http://www.cochrane.org/handbook#supplements

http://www.evidencebasedpublichealth.de/download/Newcastle_Ottawa_Scale_tool.pdf

http://www.ohri.ca/programs/clinical_epidemiology/nosgen.pdf

http://www.ohri.ca/programs/clinical_epidemiology/nos_manual.pdf

http://www.strobe-statement.org/fileadmin/Strobe/uploads/checklists/STROBE_checklist_v4_combined.pdf

http://www.strobe-statement.org/fileadmin/Strobe/uploads/checklists/STROBE_checklist_v4_combined_PlosMedicine.pdf

http://www.strobe-statement.org/fileadmin/Strobe/uploads/checklists/STROBE_checklist_v4_cohort.pdf

http://www.strobe-statement.org/fileadmin/Strobe/uploads/checklists/STROBE_checklist_v4_case-control.pdf

http://www.strobe-statement.org/fileadmin/Strobe/uploads/checklists/STROBE_checklist_v4_cross-sectional.pdf

http://media.wix.com/ugd/dded87_19dd1d558a9977c0e0b30cedf86a9da7.pdf

http://media.wix.com/ugd/dded87_36c5c76519f7bf14731ed1985e8e9798.pdf

http://media.wix.com/ugd/dded87_5acb4e1a7e77977406d645a6e5eff0b4.pdf

http://media.wix.com/ugd/dded87_acfcac3899bbfcd9548eb5dc0ca9b7b8.pdf

http://media.wix.com/ugd/dded87_951541699e9edc71ce66c9bac4734c69.pdf








http://www.hindawi.com/journals/ecam/2014/694804/

http://www.bmj.com/content/333/7563/346.full.pdf+html

http://hiv.cochrane.org/sites/hiv.cochrane.org/files/uploads/Ch13_NRS.pdf





Article: External Validity: We Need to Do More.

Annals of Behavioral Medicine, April 2006, Volume 31, Issue 2, pp 105-108.

Article: External validity in healthy public policy: application of the RE-AIM tool to the field of housing improvement.

Thomson and Thomas BMC Public Health 2012, 12:633.

Article: Evaluating the Relevance, Generalization, and Applicability of Research: Issues in External Validation and Translation Methodology.

Evaluation & the Health Professions, Vol. 29 No. 1, March 2006 126-153.

QUALITY OF EVIDENCE Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE)

20-part GRADE guideline – best practices using the GRADE framework (2011).

Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE).

6-part GRADE series (2008).


Criteria for applying or using GRADE (2010).


GRADE working group publications website.

GRADE Online Learning Modules.

McMaster University.

QUALITY OF EVIDENCE Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN)

SIGN 50. A guideline developer’s handbook (2014), chapter 5.

OTHER MATERIALS

Grading the Strength of a Body of Evidence When Assessing Health Care Interventions for the Effective Health Care: An update.


Assessing the Strength of Evidence (2014).

UK Department for International Development.

Systems to Rate the Strength of Scientific Evidence.


Reliability Testing of the AHRQ EPC Approach to Grading the Strength of Evidence in Comparative Effectiveness Reviews.


http://link.springer.com/article/10.1207%2Fs15324796abm3102_1

http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/pdf/1471-2458-12-633.pdf

http://ehp.sagepub.com/content/29/1/126.full.pdf

http://www.gradeworkinggroup.org/publications/JCE_series.htm

http://www.gradeworkinggroup.org/publications/index.htm#BMJ2008

http://www.gradeworkinggroup.org/publications/Minimum_criteria_for_using_GRADE_web.pdf

http://www.gradeworkinggroup.org/publications/index.htm

http://cebgrade.mcmaster.ca/

http://www.sign.ac.uk/pdf/sign50.pdf

http://www.effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/ehc/products/457/1752/methods-guidance-grading-evidence-131118.pdf

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/291982/HTN-strength-evidence-march2014.pdf

http://www.thecre.com/pdf/ahrq-system-strength.pdf

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK98221/pdf/TOC.pdf



LEVELS OF EVIDENCE

SIGN Grading system (2004).

The Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN).

Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine; Levels of Evidence (2011).

Rating scales to levels of evidence assessment.

Essential Evidence Plus.

Levels of Evidence.

The Joanna Brigs Institute.

Grades of Recommendation.


Using the levels of Evidence and Grades of Recommendation.


Additional levels of evidence and grades for recommendations for developers of guidelines (2009).

National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC).

Article: A review of grading systems for evidence-based guidelines produced by medical specialties (2010).

Clinical Medicine 2010, Vol 10, No 4: 358–63.

http://www.renal.org/docs/default-source/special-interest-groups/bapn/bapn-guideline/sign50section6.pdf?sfvrsn=2

http://www.cebm.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/CEBM-Levels-of-Evidence-2.1.pdf

http://www.essentialevidenceplus.com/product/ebm_loe.cfm

http://joannabriggs.org/jbi-approach.html#tabbed-nav=Levels-of-Evidence

http://joannabriggs.org/assets/docs/approach/JBI-Levels-of-evidence_2014.pdf

http://joannabriggs.org/assets/docs/approach/JBI-grades-of-recommendation_2014.pdf

http://joannabriggs.org/assets/docs/approach/Levels-of-Evidence-SupportingDocuments-v2.pdf

http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/_files_nhmrc/file/guidelines/developers/nhmrc_levels_grades_evidence_120423.pdf

http://www.clinmed.rcpjournal.org/content/10/4/358.full.pdf+html



SYNTHESIS OF SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE

I. Methodological guidance on systematic reviews and metaanalyses

Goodman C. S. HTA 101: IV. Integrative Methods.

National Information Center on Health Services Research and Health Care Technology (NICHSR) via U.S. National Library of Medicine.

The Cochrane Collaboration guidelines: Selecting studies and collecting data.


The Cochrane Collaboration guidelines: Presenting results and summary of findings.


The Cochrane Collaboration guidelines: Analysing data and undertaking metaanalyses.


The Systematic Review of Prevalence and Incidence Data (2014).


Reviewer´s Manual, 2014.


Systematic Reviews.

Centre for Reviews and Dissemination’s (CRD) guidance for undertaking reviews in healthcare.

Methods Guide for Effectiveness and Comparative Effectiveness Reviews.


Standards for Systematic Reviews. Report.

Institute of Medicine of the national academies (IOM).

Clinical Practice Guideline Process Manual.

American Academy of Neurology, 2011.

Commentary: Systematic review automation technologies.

Tsafnat et al. Systematic Reviews 2014, 3:74.

Article: How to Read a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis and Apply the Results to Patient Care. Users’ Guides to the Medical Literature.

The Journal of the American Medical Association, 2014; 312(2):171-9.

II. Quality assessment checklists for systematic review and metaanalyses

Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR)


Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP)

Systematic Review Checklist.

AGREE II

Critically appraising practice guidelines: The AGREE II instrument.



http://handbook.cochrane.org/chapter_7/7_selecting_studies_and_collecting_data.htm

http://handbook.cochrane.org/chapter_11/11_presenting_results_and_summary_of_findings_tables.htm

http://handbook.cochrane.org/chapter_9/9_analysing_data_and_undertaking_meta_analyses.htm

http://joannabriggs.org/assets/docs/sumari/ReviewersManual_2014-The-Systematic-Review-of-Prevalence-and-Incidence-Data_v2.pdf

http://joannabriggs.org/assets/docs/sumari/ReviewersManual-2014.pdf

http://www.york.ac.uk/media/crd/Systematic_Reviews.pdf

http://effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/ehc/products/60/318/CER-Methods-Guide-140109.pdf

http://www.iom.edu/Reports/2011/Finding-What-Works-in-Health-Care-Standards-for-Systematic-Reviews/Standards.aspx

http://tools.aan.com/globals/axon/assets/9023.pdf


http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1886196&quizId=3909&atab=8


http://media.wix.com/ugd/dded87_ebad01cd736c4b868abe4b10e7c2ef23.pdf




PRISMA

PRISMA (2009) checklist.

PRISMA (2009) flow diagram.

PRISMA-Equity checklist (2012) for equity-focused reviews.

PRISMA Flow Diagram Generator.

Scottish Intercollegiate Guideline Network (SIGN)

Critical Appraisal Notes and Checklist for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis.

QUADAS

QUADAS-2 – background document and checklist for diagnostic accuracy reviews.

Article: The development of QUADAS: a tool for the quality assessment of studies of diagnostic accuracy included in systematic reviews.

BMC Medical Research Methodology 2003, 3:25.

Article: QUADAS-2: A Revised Tool for the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies.

Annals of internal medicine. 10/2011; 155(8):529-36.

Newcastle-Ottawa Scale

Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for assessing the quality of nonrandomised studies in meta-analyses.

http://www.prisma-statement.org/2.1.2%20-%20PRISMA%202009%20Checklist.pdf

http://www.prisma-statement.org/2.1.4%20-%20PRISMA%20Flow%202009%20Diagram.pdf

http://equity.cochrane.org/equity-extension-prisma

http://prisma.thetacollaborative.ca/


http://www.bris.ac.uk/quadas/quadas-2/


http://annals.org/article.aspx?articleid=474994

http://www.ohri.ca/programs/clinical_epidemiology/oxford.asp



GUIDANCE ON ECONOMIC ANALYSIS

I. Methodological guidance

Goodman C. S. HTA 101: V. Economic Analysis Methods.


Guidelines for the Economic Evaluation of Health Technologies: Canada, 3rd edition, 2006.

Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH).

Methods for health technology evaluation.

Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care (IQWIG).

The Cochrane Collaboration: Incorporating economic evidence.


Best Practices for Conducting Economic Evaluations in Health Care: A Systematic Review of Quality Assessment Tools quality checklists (2012).


Cost Analysis Tool: Simplifying Cost Analysis for Managers and Staff of Health Care Services.

Article: Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) — Explanation and Elaboration: A Report of the ISPOR Health Economic Evaluation Publication Guidelines Good Reporting Practices Task Force.

Value in Health 16 (2013), 231-250.

HTA Assessment. Economic evaluations in international health technology assessments – a study of methodologies (2003).

Sunhedsstyrelsen National Board of Health.

Review: Handling uncertainty when performing economic evaluation of healthcare interventions.

Health Technology Assessment NHS R&D HTA Program. Health Technology Assessment 1999; Vol. 3: No. 2.

A methodological guide. Choices in Methods for Economic Evaluation (2012).

Haute Autorite de Sante (HAS), France.

Guidelines for the Economic Evaluation of Health Technologies (2011).

The Health Information and Quality Authority in Ireland.

Guidelines for Evaluating the Clinical Effectiveness of Health Technologies (2014).


Guidelines for the Retrieval and Interpretation of Economic Evaluations of Health Technologies (2014).


Belgian guidelines for economic evaluations and budget impact analyses: second edition (2012).

The Belgian Health Care Knowledge Centre (KCE).

Methods for health economic evaluations - A guideline based on current practices in Europe.

EUnetHTA guideline, 2015.

Health Services Research and Development Service.

QUERI Economic Analysis Guidelines, 2014.

Article: Key principles for the improved conduct of health technology assessments for resource allocation decisions.

International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 24:3 (2008), 244-258.

Article: Increasing the generalizability of economic evaluations: Recommendations for the design, analysis, and reporting of studies.

International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 21:2 (2005), 165–171.


http://www.inahta.org/wp-content/themes/inahta/img/AboutHTA_Guidelines_for_the_Economic_Evaluation_of_Health_Technologies.pdf

https://www.iqwig.de/en/methods/methods-papers/health-economic-evaluation.3022.html

http://handbook.cochrane.org/chapter_15/15_incorporating_economics_evidence.htm

http://effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/ehc/products/485/1302/MethodsBestPractices_FinalReport_20121023.pdf

http://www.hrhresourcecenter.org/node/1410

http://www.ispor.org/ValueInHealth/ShowValueInHealth.aspx?issue=3D35FDBC-D569-431D-8C27-378B8F99EC67

http://sundhedsstyrelsen.dk/publ/Publ2004/Sundhedsoekonomiske_evalueringer_MTV.pdf

http://www.journalslibrary.nihr.ac.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/64832/FullReport-hta3020.pdf

http://www.has-sante.fr/portail/upload/docs/application/pdf/2012-10/choices_in_methods_for_economic_evaluation.pdf

http://www.hiqa.ie/system/files/Revised_Economic_Guidelines_posted_100714.pdf

http://www.hiqa.ie/system/files/Clinical-Effectiveness-Guidelines.pdf

http://www.hiqa.ie/system/files/Guidelines-Retrieval-and-Interpretation-of-Econ-Lit.pdf

https://kce.fgov.be/sites/default/files/page_documents/KCE_183C_economic_evaluations_second_edition_0.pdf

http://www.eunethta.eu/sites/5026.fedimbo.belgium.be/files/2015-04-29-ECO-GL_Final%20version_0.pdf

http://www.queri.research.va.gov/EconomicAnalysis.pdf

http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayFulltext?type=1&fid=1923468&jid=THC&volumeId=24&issueId=03&aid=1923460&bodyId=&membershipNumber=&societyETOCSession

http://journals.cambridge.org/download.php?file=%2FTHC%2FTHC21_02%2FS0266462305050221a.pdf&code=ac936e8d26be9b1c454f2789ffa4ab4d



Article: Spanish recommendations on economic evaluation of health technologies.

The European Journal of Health Economics (2010), 11:5, 513-520

Summarized Research in Information Retrieval for HTA (SuRe Info).

HTAi Vortal website.

II. Quality assessment checklists

Critical appraisal of methodological quality.


Best Practices for Conducting Economic Evaluations in Health Care: A Systematic Review of Quality Assessment Tools.


Criteria list for assessment of methodological quality of economic evaluations: Consensus on Health Economic Criteria (CHEC).


DRUMMOND

Critical appraisal of methodological quality (chapter 15.5).


EVERS

Critical appraisal of methodological quality (chapter 15.5).


Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP)

Economic Evaluation Checklist.

Scottish Intercollegiate Guideline Network (SIGN)

Critical Appraisal notes and checklist (6) for Economic studies.

ISPOR Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS)

CHEERS Checklist.

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10198-010-0244-4

http://vortal.htai.org/?q=node/336%20/cost%20and%20economic%20evaluation/

http://handbook.cochrane.org/chapter_15/15_5_2_critical_appraisal_of_methodological_quality.htm

http://effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/ehc/products/485/1302/MethodsBestPractices_FinalReport_20121023.pdf

http://dare.ubvu.vu.nl/bitstream/handle/1871/23210/186968.pdf?sequence=1

http://handbook.cochrane.org/chapter_15/figure_15_5_a_drummond_checklist_drummond_1996.htm

http://handbook.cochrane.org/chapter_15/figure_15_5_b_evers_checklist_evers_2005.htm

http://www.caspinternational.org/mod_product/uploads/CASP_Economic_Evaluations_Checklist_14.10.10.pdf


http://www.equator-network.org/reporting-guidelines/cheers/



METHODOLOGICAL GUIDANCE ON HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT

EUnetHTA guidelines.

EUnetHTA: Assessment element tables for HTA Core Model Application for Diagnostic Technologies (2.0).

EUnetHTA: Assessment element tables for HTA Core Model Application for Medical and Surgical Interventions (2.0).

EUnetHTA: Assessment element tables for HTA Core Model Application for Pharmaceuticals (2.0).

EUnetHTA: Assessment element tables for HTA Core Model Application for Screening Technologies (2.0).

Article: The HTA Core Model: A novel method for producing and reporting health technology assessments.

International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 25:Supplement 2 (2009), 9–20.

Best practice in undertaking and reporting Health Technology Assessments.


A checklist for Health Technology Assessment Reports.

International Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment (INAHTA).

Guide to the process of technology appraisal, 2014.

National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE).

Guide to the methods of technology appraisal, 2013.

National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE).

Health Technology Assessment on the Net International.

Goodman C. S. HTA 101 Introduction to Health Technology Assessment (2014).


Health Technology Assessment of medical devices.

World Health Organization (WHO).

HTA Assessment Handbook (2007).


Introduction to mini-HTA: a management and decision support tool for the hospital service (2005).


A toolkit for the identification and assessment of new and emerging health technologies (2014).

EuroScan.

MADRE-2013. Support method for decision making in assessment and appraisal of medicines.

Spanish Society of Hospital Pharmacy (SEFH), Group for Innovation, Assessment, Standardisation and Research in the Selection of Drugs (GENESIS), 2012.

Article: Toward transparency in health technology assessment: A checklist for HTA Reports.


Article: Health technology assessment: A comprehensive framework for evidence-based recommendations in Ontario.

International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care / Volume 25 / Issue 02 / 2009, 141-150.

http://www.eunethta.eu/eunethta-guidelines

http://meka.thl.fi/htacore/model/AE-tables-diagnostics-2.0.pdf

http://meka.thl.fi/htacore/model/AE-tables-interventions-2.0.pdf

http://meka.thl.fi/htacore/model/AE-tables-pharma-2.0.pdf

http://meka.thl.fi/htacore/model/AE-tables-screening-2.0.pdf

http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=6894100&fileId=S0266462309990638

http://www.inahta.org/wp-content/themes/inahta/img/AboutHTA_Best_Practice_in_Undertaking_and_Reporting_HTAs.pdf

http://inahta.episerverhotell.net/HTA/Checklist/

http://www.nice.org.uk/article/pmg19/resources/non-guidance-guide-to-the-processes-of-technology-appraisal-pdf

http://www.nice.org.uk/article/pmg9/resources/non-guidance-guide-to-the-methods-of-technology-appraisal-2013-pdf

http://www.ihe.ca/documents/HTA%20on%20the%20Net%202013.pdf

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/nichsr/hta101/HTA_101_FINAL_10-23-14.pdf

http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2011/9789241501361_eng.pdf?ua=1

http://sundhedsstyrelsen.dk/publ/Publ2008/MTV/Metode/HTA_Handbook_net_final.pdf

http://sundhedsstyrelsen.dk/publ/Publ2005/cemtv/Mini_mtv/Introduction_mini_hta.pdf

http://euroscan.org.uk/methods/

http://gruposdetrabajo.sefh.es/genesis/genesis/Documents/MADRE%204_0_Procedures%20manual_Dec_2013.pdf

http://www.inahta.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Hailey-2003_INAHTA-Checklist.pdf

http://journals.cambridge.org/download.php?file=%2FTHC%2FTHC25_02%2FS0266462309090199a.pdf&code=7940dcd7c93708d5ef0a6e06d5ccf9fa



METHODOLOGICAL GUIDANCE ON DISINVESTMENT

Identification, prioritisation and assessment of obsolete technologies. A methodological guideline (2009).

Galician Health Technology Assessment Agency, Ministry of Science & Innovation.

GuNFT - Guideline for Not Funding existing Technologies (2007).

Basque Office for Health Technology Assessment, Ministry of Health and Social Affairs.

Challenges in Australian policy processes for disinvestment from existing, ineffective health care practices (2007).

Australia and New Zealand Health Policy 2007, 4:23.

Disinvestment, A Reading List produced by Quality, Innovation, Productivity and Prevention (QIPP) Right Care (2012).

Reducing the use of ineffective health care interventions (Center for Health Economics Research and Evaluation) (2010).

Centre for Health Economics, Research and Evaluation (CHERE), Sydney.

Using health technology assessment to support optimal use of technologies in current practice: the challenge of "disinvestment" (2012).

International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care / Volume 28 / Issue 03 / July 2012, pp 203-210.

Processes, contexts, and rationale for disinvestment: a protocol for a critical interpretive synthesis (2014).

Wilson et al. Systematic Reviews 2014, 3:143.

Case studies that illustrate disinvestment and resource allocation decision-making processes in health care: a systematic review (2013).

International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care / Volume 29 / Issue 02 / April 2013, pp 174-184.

Disinvestment in Australia and New Zealand (2013).

Health Policy Advisory Committee on Technology.

A novel research design can aid disinvestment from existing health technologies with uncertain effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, and/or safety (2013).

T. Haines et al. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 11/2013.

Towards a plan for better targeting of existing health services - Think piece (2012).

National Health Committee (NHC), New Zealand.

Guiding the process of health technology disinvestment (2010).

Basque Office for Health Technology Assessment (Osteba). Department of Health and Consumer Affairs of the Basque Country. Health Policy. 12/2010; 98(2-3):218-26.

Disinvestment. Overview of disinvestment experiences and challenges in selected countries (2011).

LBI-HTA. Project Report.

Future directions for health technology uptake, diffusion and disinvestment in Victorian public health services (2007).

Department of Human Services workshop discussion paper, Australia.

Policy Perspectives on the Obsolescence of Health Technologies in Canada (2009).

Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH). Discussion paper.

Disinvestment for re-allocation: A process to identify priorities in healthcare (2010).

Health Policy 95 (2010) 137–143.

Breaking up is hard to do: why disinvestment in medical technology is harder than investment (2012).

Australian health review: a publication of the Australian Hospital Association (2012); 36(2):148-52.

Exploring policy-makers’ perspectives on disinvestment from ineffective healthcare practices (2008).


The role of NICE technology appraisal in NHS rationing (2007).

British Medical Bulletin 2007; 81 and 82: 51–64.

http://www.sergas.es/MostrarContidos_N3_T02.aspx?IdPaxina=60563&uri=/docs/Avalia-t/ObsoleteTechMemFinal.pdf

http://www.htai.org/fileadmin/HTAi_Files/ISG/Disinvestment/GuNFT-GuidelineForNotFundingExistingTechnologies.pdf

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2174492/pdf/1743-8462-4-23.pdf

http://www.rightcare.nhs.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/disinvestment_ERlist_march2012.pdf

http://www.tepou.co.nz/assets/images/content/training_funding/tools-for-learning/files/wp2010_5.pdf




http://www.health.qld.gov.au/healthpact/docs/papers/workshop/disinvestment-report.pdf

http://www.researchgate.net/publication/258922041_A_novel_research_design_can_aid_disinvestment_from_existing_health_technologies_with_uncertain_effectiveness_cost-effectiveness_andor_safety

http://nhc.health.govt.nz/system/files/documents/publications/disinvestment-think-piece-sept2012-v2.pdf

http://www.researchgate.net/publication/45271178_Guiding_the_process_of_health_technology_disinvestment

http://eprints.hta.lbg.ac.at/926/1/HTA-Projektbericht_Nr57.pdf

http://www.health.vic.govau/newtech/documents/new-tech-workshop-discussion.pdf

http://www.cadth.ca/media/policy_forum_section/Obsolescence%20of%20Health%20Technologies%20in%20Canada_Policy_Forum_e.pdf

http://web1.sssup.it/pubblicazioni/ugov_files/302619_Disinvestmentforre-allocation_2009.pdf

https://opus.lib.uts.edu.au/research/bitstream/handle/10453/18810/2010005226OK.pdf?sequence=1

http://www.kvalitetogprioritering.no/_attachment/13112

http://bmb.oxfordjournals.org/content/81-82/1/51.full.pdf+html



Utilization of health technologies— Do not look where there is a light; shine your light where there is a need to look! Relating national health goals with resource allocation decision-making; illustration through examining the Israeli healthcare system (2009).

Health Policy 92 (2009) 268–275.

Identifying existing health care services that do not provide value for money (2009).

The Medical Journal of Australia (2009). 190 (5): 269-273.

What are we doing to ensure the sustainability of the health system? (2011).

Research paper no. 4, 2011-12, Parliament of Australia.

The development of a disinvestment framework to guide resource allocation decisions in health service delivery organizations (2010).

Research master´s paper.

Disinvestment policy and the public funding of assisted reproductive technologies: outcomes of deliberative engagements with three key stakeholder groups (2014).

Hodgetts et al. BMC Health Services Research 2014, 14:204.

Policy on the introduction of high-cost health technologies (superseded in 2014).

Western Australian Policy Advisory Committee on Technology.

What counts and how to count it: Physicians’ constructions of evidence in a disinvestment context (2012).

Social Science & Medicine, Volume 75, Issue 12, December 2012, Pages 2191–2199.

Decommissioning and Disinvestment Toolkit (2010-11).

South East Essex, NHS.

Tackling disinvestment in health care services: The view of resource allocators in the English NHS (2013).

Journal of Health Organization and Management, Vol. 27 Iss 6 pp. 762 – 780.

Decommissioning Toolkit. A best practice approach to meeting changing needs and delivering value for money.

CROYDON gov uk.

Using clinical practice variations as a method for commissioners and clinicians to identify and prioritise opportunities for disinvestment in health care (2011).

NIHR Service Delivery and Organisation Programme, NHS NICE.

Investment and Disinvestment Policy (2013).

North Manchester Clinical Commissioning Group, NHS.

Rational disinvestment (2010). Commentary.

An International Journal of Medicine (2010); 103:801–807.

A national Programme Budgeting and Marginal Analysis (PBMA) of health improvement spending across Wales: disinvestment and reinvestment across the life course (2014).

Edwards et al. BMC Public Health 2014, 14:837.

“I won't call it rationing…” An ethnographic study of healthcare disinvestment in theory and practice (2015).

Social Science & Medicine, Volume 128, March 2015, Pages 273–281.

The ASTUTE Health study protocol: deliberative stakeholder engagements to inform implementation approaches to healthcare disinvestment (2012).

Watt et al. Implementation Science 2012, 7:101.

Engaging clinicians in evidence-based disinvestment: role and perceptions of evidence (2012).

International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care / Volume 28 / Issue 03 / July 2012, pp 211-219.

Reorienting programme budgeting and marginal analysis (PBMA) towards disinvestment (2010).

Mortimer BMC Health Services Research 2010, 10:288.

Introduction of High-Cost Health Technologies (2013).

Government of Western Australia, Department of Health, 2013.

http://www.med.mcgill.ca/epidemiology/courses/EPIB654/Summer2010/Policy/HTA%20Israeli%20system.pdf

https://www.mja.com.au/journal/2009/190/5/identifying-existing-health-care-services-do-not-provide-value-money

http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/library/prspub/1234561/upload_binary/1234561.pdf;fileType=application/pdf#search=%222010s%20boxall,%20anne-marie%22

https://circle.ubc.ca/bitstream/handle/2429/43366/ubc_2012_fall_schmidt_diane.pdf?sequence=1


http://www.health.wa.gov.au/circularsnew/attachments/493.pdf


http://commissioning.libraryservices.nhs.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/7-july-2010-decommissioning-disinvestment-toolkit.pdf

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/pdfplus/10.1108/JHOM-11-2012-0225

https://www.croydon.gov.uk/sites/default/files/articles/downloads/decommissioning.pdf

http://www.nets.nihr.ac.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/54998/PRO-09-1006-25.pdf

http://www.manchester.nhs.uk/document_uploads/Policies_Procedures/NMCCG%20Investment%20and%20Disinvestment%20Policy%20%20%28Final%29_7065f.pdf

http://qjmed.oxfordjournals.org/content/qjmed/103/10/801.full.pdf

http://www.biomedcentralcom/content/pdf/1471-2458-14-837.pdf



w.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22980696


http://www.health.wa.gov.au/circularsNew/attachments/920.pdf



Trends in procedures for infertility and caesarean sections: was NICE disinvestment guidance implemented? NICE recommendation reminders (2013).

Chamberlain et al. BMC Public Health 2013, 13:112.

Using evidence to stop ineffective practice: NICE and Cochrane work together (2011).

Presentation.

DianaHealth. Dissemination of Initiatives to Analyse Appropriateness in Healthcare (initiatives and recommendations).

PriTec tool (avalia-T).


http://www.g-i-n.net/document-store/g-i-n-conferences/seoul-2011/presentations-seoul-2011/short-orals-seoul-2011/o62_leng_using-evidence-to-stop-inappropriate-practice_300811.pdf

http://www.dianasalud.com/index.php/

http://www.pritectools.es/%20http:/pritectools.es/Controlador/documentosAction.php?idioma=en