National Information Center on Health Services Research and Health Care Technology (NICHSR)
HTA 101: Appendix. Suggested Readings in HTA
- Origins and Evolution of Technology Assessment
- Overview of HTA
- Priority Setting
- Randomized Controlled Trials
- HTA of Diagnostic and Screening Technologies
- Evidence in HTA
- Cost-Effectiveness and Related Economic Analyses
- Decision Analysis
- Consensus Development
- Health-Related Quality of Life Measures
- Ethical, Legal, Social, and Political Issues
- HTA and Quality of Care
- Searching the HTA Literature
Arnstein SA. Technology assessment: opportunities and obstacles. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics. 1977;SMC-7:571-82.
Brooks H, Bowers R. The assessment of technology. Science. 1970;222(2):13-20.
Coates JF. Technology assessment: the benefits ... the costs ... the consequences. The Futurist. 1971;December:225-31.
National Academy of Engineering, Committee on Public Engineering Policy. A Study of Technology Assessment. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office; 1969.
National Research Council, Committee on the Life Sciences and Social Policy. Assessing Biomedical Technologies: An Inquiry into the Nature of the Process. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences; 1975.
Porter AL. Technology assessment. Impact Assessment. 1995;13(2):135-51.
Rettig RA. Health Care in Transition: Technology Assessment in the Private Sector. Santa Monica, Ca: RAND; 1997.
US Congress, Office of Technology Assessment. Technology Assessment in Business and Government. Summary and Analysis. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office; 1977.
US Congress, Office of Technology Assessment. Assessing the Efficacy and Safety of Medical Technologies. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office; 1978.
US Congress, Office of Technology Assessment. Development of Medical Technology: Opportunities for Assessment. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, 1976.
US Congress, House of Representatives. Committee on Science and Astronautics. Technology Assessment. Statement of Emilio Q. Daddario, Chairman, Subcommittee on Science Research and Development. 90th Cong., 1st sess., Washington, DC; 1967.
Banta HD, Luce BR. Health Care Technology and its Assessment: An International Perspective. New York: Oxford University Press; 1993.
Busse R, Orvain J, Velasco M, et al. Best practice in undertaking and reporting health technology assessments. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2002;18:361-422.
Eddy DM. A Manual for Assessing Health Practices & Designing Practice Policies: The Explicit Approach. Philadelphia, Pa: American College of Physicians; 1992.
Feeny D, Guyatt G, Tugwell P, eds. Health Care Technology: Effectiveness, Efficiency, and Public Policy. Montreal, Quebec: Institute for Research on Public Policy; 1986.
Franklin C. Basic concepts and fundamental issues in technology assessment. Intensive Care Medicine. 1993;19(2):117-21.
Goodman CS. Healthcare technology assessment: methods, framework, and role in policy making. Am J Manag Care. 1998;4:SP200-14.
Institute of Medicine. Assessing Medical Technologies. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 1985.
Joint Report of the Council on Scientific Affairs and the Council on Medical Service. Technology assessment in medicine. Arch Intern Med. 1992;152(1):46-50.
Littenberg B. Technology assessment in medicine. Academic Medicine. 1992;67(7):424-8.
Porter AL, Rossini FA, Carpenter SR, Roper AT. A Guidebook for Technology Assessment and Impact Analysis. New York, NY: North Holland, 1980.
Power EJ, Tunis SR, Wagner JL. Technology assessment and public health. Annual Review of Public Health. 1994;15:561-79.
US Congress, Office of Technology Assessment. Strategies for Medical Technology Assessment. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office; 1982.
US Congress, Office of Technology Assessment. Identifying Health Technologies That Work: Searching for Evidence. OTA-H-608. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office; 1994.
Chase D, Milne R, Stein K, Stevens A. What are the relative merits of the sources used to identify potential research priorities for the NHS HTA programme? Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2000;16(3):743-50.
Donaldson MS, Sox HC, Jr, eds. Setting Priorities for Health Technology Assessment: A Model Process. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 1992.
Eddy DM. Selecting technologies for assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 1989;5(4):485-501.
Hadorn DC. The problem of discrimination in health care priority setting. JAMA. 1992;268(11):1454-9.
Henshall C, Oortwijn W, Stevens A, Granados A, Banta D. Priority setting for health technology assessment. Theoretical considerations and practical approaches. Priority setting subgroup of the EURÂASSESS project. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 1997;13(2):144-85.
Lara ME, Goodman C, eds. National Priorities for the Assessment of Clinical Conditions and Medical Technologies: Report of a Pilot Study. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 1990.
Oortwijn WJ, Vondeling H, van Barneveld T, et al. Priority setting for health technology assessment in the Netherlands: principles and practice. Health Policy.2002;62(3):227-42.
Phelps CE, Parente ST. Priority setting in medical technology and medical practice assessment. Medical Care. 1990;28(8):703-23.
Phelps CE, Mooney C. Correction and update on 'priority setting in medical technology assessment.' Medical Care. 1992;30(8):744-51.
Sassi F. Setting priorities for the evaluation of health interventions: when theory does not meet practice. Health Policy. 2003;63:141-54.
Shekelle P, Eccles MP, Grimshaw JM, Woolf SH. When should clinical guidelines be updated? BMJ. 2001;323:155-7.
Buring JE, Jonas MA, Hennekens CH. Large and simple randomized trials. In Tools for Evaluating Health Technologies: Five Background Papers, US Congress, Office of Technology Assessment. BP-H-142. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office; 1995:67-91.
Chalmers TC, Celano P, Sacks HS, Smith H, Jr. Bias in treatment assignment in controlled clinical trials. N Engl J Med. 1983;309:1358-61.
Chow S, Liu J. Design and Analysis of Clinical Trials. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons; 1998.
Ellenberg SS. Do large, simple trials have a place in the evaluation of aids therapies? Oncology. 1992;6(4):55-9,63.
Freiman, JA, Chalmers TC, Smith H, Jr., Kuebler RR. The importance of beta, the type II error and sample size in the design and interpretation of the randomized controlled trial. Survey of 71 "negative" trials. N Engl J Med. 1978;299(13):690-4.
Gurwitz JH, Col NF, Avorn J. The exclusion of the elderly and women from clinical trials in acute myocardial infarction. JAMA. 1992;268(11):1417-22.
Juni P, Altman DG, Egger M. Systematic reviews in health care: assessing the quality of controlled clinical trials. BMJ. 2001;323(7303):42-6.
Kraemer HC, Pruyn JP. The evaluation of different approaches to randomized clinical trials. Arch Gen Psych. 1990;47(12):1163-9.
Lubsen J, Tijssen JG. Large trials with simple protocols: indications and contraindications. Control Clin Trials. 1989;10(suppl. 4):151S-60S.
Merigan TC. You can teach an old dog new tricks: how AIDS trials are pioneering new strategies. N Engl J Med. 1990;323(19):1341-3.
Merkatz RB, Temple R, Sobel S, Feiden K, Kessler D. Women in clinical trials of new drugs: a change in Food and Drug Administration Policy. N Engl J Med. 1993;329(4):292-6.
Moher D, Cook DJ, Eastwood S, Olkin I, et al. Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials: The QUOROM Statement. Quality of reporting of meta-analyses. Lancet. 1999;354:1896-900.
Peto R, Collins R, Gray R. Large-scale randomized evidence: large, simple trials and overviews of trials. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 1995;48(1):23-40.
Pocock SJ, Hughes MD, Lee RJ. Statistical problems in the reporting of clinical trials. N Engl J Med. 1987;317(7):426-32.
Rothenberg, Carbone DP, Johnson DH. Improving the evaluation of new cancer treatments: challenges and opportunities. Nat Rev Cancer. 2003;3:303-9.
Spilker B. Guide to Clinical Trials. New York, NY: Raven Press; 1991.
Yusuf S, Held P, Teo KK, Toretsky ER. Selection of patients for randomized controlled trials: implications of wide or narrow eligibility criteria. Statistics in Medicine. 1990;9(1-2):73-83.
Begg CB. Biases in the assessment of diagnostic tests. Stat Med. 1987;6(4):411-23.
Boyko EJ. Ruling out or ruling in disease with the most sensitive or specific diagnostic test: short cut or wrong turn? Med Dec Making. 1994;14(2):175-9.
Canadian Task Force on the Periodic Health Examination. The periodic health examination: 2. 1987 update. CAMJ. 1988;138(7):617-26.
Deyo RA. Cascade effects of medical technology. Annu Rev Public Health. 2002;23:23-44.
Goin JE, Hermann GA. The clinical efficacy of diagnostic imaging evaluation studies: Problems, paradigms, and prescription. Investigative Radiology. 1991;26(5):507-11.
Kassirer JP. Our stubborn quest for diagnostic certainty. a cause of excessive testing. N Engl J Med. 1989;321(18):1272-3.
Mushlin AI, Mooney C, Grow V, Phelps CE. The value of diagnostic information to patients with suspected multiple sclerosis. Archives of Neurology. 1994;51(1):67-72.
Riegelman RK, Hirsch RP, eds. Studying a Study and Testing a Test. How to Read the Medical Literature. Second Edition. Boston, Ma: Little, Brown; 1989.
Sox H, Stern S, Owens D, Abrams HL. Assessment of Diagnostic Technology in Health Care: Rationale, Methods, Problems, and Directions. Institute of Medicine. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 1989.
Thornbury JR. Clinical efficacy of diagnostic imaging: love it or leave it. AJR. 1994;162(1):1-8.
Thornbury JR, Fryback DG. Technology assessment − an American view. Eur J Radiol. 1992;14(2):147-56.
US Preventive Services Task Force. Guide to Clinical Preventive Services: Second edition. Baltimore, Md: Williams & Wilkins; 1996.
Wells PN, Garrett JA, Jackson PC. Assessment criteria for diagnostic imaging technologies. Medical Progress Through Technology. 1991;17(2):93-101.
Bailar JC, Mosteller F, eds. Medical Uses of Statistics. Boston, Ma: NEJM Books; 1992. Chalmers I. Under-reporting research is scientific misconduct. JAMA. 1990;263(10):1405-8. Chalmers TC, Frank CS, Reitman D. Minimizing the three stages of publication bias. JAMA. 1990;263(10):1392-5.
Cook DJ, Guyatt GH, Laupacis A, Sackett DL. Rules of evidence and clinical recommendations on the use of antithrombotic agents. Chest. 1992;102(suppl. 4):305S-11S.
Daly LE, Bourke GJ, McGilvray J. Interpretation and Uses of Medical Statistics. Oxford, England: Blackwell Scientific Publications; 1991.
Easterbrook PJ, Berlin JA, Gopalan R, Matthews DR. Publication bias in clinical research. Lancet. 1991;337:867-72.
Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group. Evidence-based medicine: a new approach to teaching the practice of medicine. JAMA. 1992;268(17):2420-5.
Flood AB. Peaks and pits of using large data bases to measure quality of care. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 1990;6(2):253-62.
Greer N, Mosser G, Logan G, Halaas GW. A practical approach to evidence grading. Jt Comm J Qual Improv. 2000;26(12):700-12.
Guyatt GH, Haynes RB, Jaeschke RZ, et al. Users' guide to the medical literature, XXV: Evidence-based medicine: principles for applying the users' guides to patient care. Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group. JAMA. 2000;284:1290-6.
Guyatt GH, Sackett DL, Cook DJ. Users' guides to the medical literature. II. How to use an article about a therapy or prevention. A. Are the results of the study valid? Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group. JAMA. 1993;270(21):2598-601.
Guyatt GH, Sackett DL, Cook DJ. Users' guides to the medical literature. II. How to use an article about a therapy or prevention. B. What were the results and will they help me in caring for my patients? Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group. JAMA. 1994;271(1):59-63.
Harris RP, Helfand M, Woolf SH, et al. Current methods of the US Preventive Services Task Force. A review of the process. Am J Prev Med. 2001;20(3S):21-35.
Jaeschke R, Guyatt G, Sackett DL. Users' guides to the medical literature. III. How to use an article about a diagnostic test. A. Are the results of the study valid? Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group. JAMA. 1994;271(5):389-91.
Jaeschke R, Guyatt GH, Sackett DL. Users' guides to the medical literature. III. How to use an article about a diagnostic test. B. What are the results and will they help me in caring for my patients? Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group. JAMA. 1994;271(9):703-7.
Khan KS, ter Riet G, Glanville J, Sowden AJ, Kleijnen J. Undertaking Systematic Reviews of Research on Effectiveness. CRD's Guidance for Carrying Out or Commissioning Reviews: York, England: University of York, NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination; 2000.
Oxman AD, Cook DJ, Guyatt GH. Users' guides to the medical literature. VI. How to use an overview. Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group. JAMA. 1994;272(17):1367-71.
Oxman AD, Sackett DL, Guyatt GH. Users' guides to the medical literature. I. How to get started. Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group. JAMA. 1993;270(17):2093-5.
RTI International-University of North Carolina Evidence-based Practice Center. Systems to Rate the Strength of Scientific Evidence. Evidence Report/Technology Assessment Number 47. AHRQ Publication No. 02-E016, Rockville, Md: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, April 2002.
Sackett DL, Richardson WS, Rosenberg W, Haynes RB. Evidence-Based Medicine. New York, NY: Churchill Livingstone; 1997.
Doubilet P, Weinstein MC, McNeil BJ. Use and misuse of the term "cost effective" in medicine. N Engl J Med. 1986;314(4):253-6.
Eddy DM. Clinical decision making: from theory to practice. cost-effectiveness analysis. Is it up to the task? JAMA. 1992;267(24):3342-8.
Eisenberg JM. Clinical economics: A guide to the economic analysis of clinical practices. JAMA. 1989;262(20):2879-86.
Gold MR, Siegel JE, Russell LB, Weinstein MC. Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 1996.
Laupacis A, Feeny D, Detsky AS, Tugwell PX. How attractive does a new technology have to be to warrant adoption and utilization? Tentative guidelines for using clinical and economic evaluations. CAMJ. 1992;146(4):473-81.
Poe NR, Griffiths RI. Clinical-economic trials. In Tools for Evaluating Health Technologies: Five Background Papers. US Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, 125-49. BP-H-142. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office; 1995.
Russell LB. Opportunity costs in modern medicine. Health Aff. 1992;11(2):162-9.
Warner KE, Luce BR. Cost-Benefit and Cost-Effectiveness Analysis in Health Care. Ann Arbor, Mich: Health Administration Press; 1982.
Weinstein MC. Principles of cost-effective resource allocation in health care organizations. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 1990;6(1):93-103.
Chalmers TC, Lau J. Meta-analytic stimulus for changes in clinical trials. Statistical Methods in Medical Research. 1993;2(2):161-72.
Cook TD, Cooper H, Cordray DS, Hartmann H, Hedges LV, Light RJ, Louis TA, Mosteller F. Meta-Analysis for Explanation: A Casebook. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation; 1992.
Deeks JJ. Systematic reviews in health care: systematic reviews of evaluations of diagnostic and screening tests. BMJ 2001;323:157-62.
Eddy DM. A Manual for Assessing Health Practices & Designing Practice Policies: The Explicit Approach. Philadelphia, Pa: American College of Physicians; 1992.
Egger M, Davey Smith G, Altman DG, eds. Systematic Reviews in Health Care: Meta-Analysis in Context. 2nd ed. London, England: BMJ Books; 2001.
Hasselblad V, McCrory DC. Meta-analytic tools for medical decision making: a practical guide. Medical Decision Making. 1995;15(1):81-96.
Jones DR. Meta-analysis of observational epidemiological studies: a review. J Royal Soc Med. 1992;85(3):165-8.
Laird NM, Mosteller F. Some statistical methods for combining experimental results. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 1990;6(1):5-30.
Longnecker MP. Meta-analysis. In Tools for Evaluating Health Technologies: Five Background Papers. US Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, 93-123. BP-H-142. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office; 1995.
Moher D, Cook DJ, Eastwood S, Olkin I, et al. Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials: the QUOROM statement. Quality of reporting of meta-analyses. Lancet. 1999;354:1896-900.
Normand SL. Meta-analysis: formulating, evaluating, combining, and reporting. Stat Med. 1999;18:321-59.
Petitti DB. Approaches to heterogeneity in meta-analysis. Stat Med. 2001;20:3625-33.
Petitti DB. Meta-Analysis, Decision Analysis, and Cost-Effectiveness Analysis. Methods for Quantitative Synthesis in Medicine. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 1994.
Thacker SB. Meta-analysis: A quantitative approach to research integration. JAMA. 1988;259(11):1685-9.
van Houwelingen HC, Arends LR, Stijnen T. Advanced methods in meta-analysis: multivariate approach and meta-regression. Stat Med. 2002;21:589-624.
Eckman MH, Levine HJ, Pauker SG. Decision analytic and cost-effectiveness issues concerning anticoagulant prophylaxis in heart disease. Chest. 1992;102(suppl. 4):538-49S.
Fleming C, Wasson JH, Albertsen PC, Barry MJ, Wennberg JE. A decision analysis of alternative treatment strategies for clinically localized prostate cancer. JAMA. 1993;269(20):2650-8.
Hagen MD. Decision analysis: a review. Family Medicine. 1992;24(5):349-54.
McNeil BJ, Pauker SG. Decision analysis for public health: principles and illustrations. Annu Rev Pub Health. 1984;5:135-61.
Pauker SG, Kassirer JP. Medical progress: decision analysis. N Engl J Med. 1987;316(5):250-8.
Soto J. Health economic evaluations using decision analytic modeling. Principles and practices--utilization of a checklist to their development and appraisal. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2002;18:94-111.
Thornton JG, Lilford RJ, Johnston N. Decision analysis in medicine. BMJ. 1992;304(6834):1099-103.
Weinstein MC, O'Brien B, Hornberger J, et al. Principles of good practice for decision analytic modeling in health-care evaluation: report of the ISPOR task force on good research practices−modeling studies. Value Health. 2003;6(1):9-17.
Zalkind DL, Shachtman RH. A decision analysis approach to the swine influenza vaccination decision for an individual. Med Care. 1980;18(1):59-72.
Andreasen PB. Consensus conferences in different countries: aims and perspectives. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 1988;4(2):305-8.
Fink A, Kosecoff J, Chassin M, Brook RH. Consensus methods: characteristics and guidelines for use. Am J Pub Health. 1984;74(9):979-83.
Ferguson JH, Sherman CR. Panelists' views of 68 NIH consensus conferences. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2001;17(4):542-58.
Goodman C, Baratz SR, eds. Improving Consensus Development for Health Technology Assessment: An International Perspective. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1990.
Greer AL. The two cultures of biomedicine: can there be a consensus? JAMA. 1987;258(19):2739-40.
Kosecoff J, Kanouse DE, Rogers WH, McCloskey L, Winslow CM, Brook RH. Effects of the National Institutes of Health Consensus Development Program on physician practice. JAMA. 1987;258(19):2708-13.
Murphy MK, Black NA, Lamping DL, et al. Consensus development methods, and their use in clinical guideline development. Health Technol Assessment. 1998;2(3):i-iv,1-88.
Perry S. The NIH Consensus Development Program. A decade later. N Engl J Med. 1987;317(8):485-488.
Veatch RM. Consensus of expertise: the role of consensus of experts in formulating public policy and estimating facts. J Med Philos. 1991;16(4):427-45.
Wortman PM, Vinokur A, Sechrest L. Do consensus conferences work? A process evaluation of the NIH Consensus Development Program. J Health Politics, Policy Law. 1998;13(3):469-98.
Fitzpatrick R, Fletcher A, Gore S, Jones D, Spiegelhalter D, Cox D. Quality of life measures in health care. I: applications and issues in assessment. BMJ. 1992;305(6861):1074-7.
Fletcher A, Gore S, Jones D, Fitzpatrick R, Spiegelhalter D, Cox D. Quality of life measures in health care. II: design, analysis, and interpretation. BMJ. 1992;305(6862):1145-8.
Gill TM, Feinstein AR. A critical appraisal of the quality of quality-of-life measurements. JAMA. 1994;272(8):619-26.
Guyatt GH, Feeny DH, Patrick DL. Measuring health-related quality of life. Ann Intern Med. 1993;118(8):622-9.
Mason JM. Cost-per QALY league tables: their roles in pharmacoeconomic analysis. Pharmacoeconomics. 1994;5:472-81.
Mehrez A, Gafni A. Healthy-years equivalents versus quality-adjusted life years: in pursuit of progress. Med Dec Making. 1993;13(4):287-92.
Mosteller F, Falotico-Taylor J, eds. Quality of Life and Technology Assessment. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1989.
Patrick DL, Erickson P. Health Status and Health Policy. Quality of Life in Health Care Evaluation and Resource Allocation. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 1993.
Spiegelhalter D, Gore S, Fitzpatrick R, Fletcher AE, Jones DR, Cox DR. Quality of life measures in health care. III: Resource allocation. BMJ. 1992;305(6863):1205-9.
Ubel PA, Nord E, Gold M, et al. Improving value measurement in cost-effectiveness analysis. Med Care. 2000;38:892-901.
Ware JE, Jr. The status of health assessment 1994. Ann Rev Pub Health. 1995;15:327-54.
Williams A. Is the QALY a technical solution to a political problem? Of course not. Int J Health Services. 1991;21(2):365-9.
Anderson GF, Hall MA, Steinberg EP. Medical technology assessment and practice guidelines: their day in court. Am J Pub Health. 1993;83(11):1635-9.
Banta HD, Andreasen PB. The political dimension in health care technology assessment programs. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 1990;6(1):115-23.
Beauchamp TL, Childress JF. Principles of Biomedical Ethics. 4th ed. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 1993.
Diamond GA. The importance of subjective values to medical technology. J Invasive Cardiol. 1993;5(1):17-22.
Ferguson JH, Dubinsky M, Kirsch PJ. Court-ordered reimbursement for unproven medical technology.
JAMA. 1993;269(16):2116-21. Gold JA, Zaremski MJ, Lev ER, Shefrin DH. Daubert v. Merrell Dow. The Supreme Court tackles
scientific evidence in the courtroom. JAMA. 1993;270(24):2964-7.
Heitman E. Ethical issues in technology assessment. Conceptual categories and procedural
considerations. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 1998;14(3):544-66.
Lantos J. Ethics, randomization, and technology assessment. Cancer. 1994;74(suppl. 9):2653-6.
Passamani E. Clinical trials: are they ethical? N Engl J Med. 1991;324(22):1589-92.
Sibbald WJ, Inman KJ. Problems in assessing the technology of critical care medicine. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 1992;8(3):419-43.
Tangri SS, Levin TE. New medical technologies: economic, ethical, and political considerations for policy. J Soc Issues. 1993;49(2):1-211.
Van der Wilt GJ, Reuzel R, Banta HD. The ethics of assessing health technologies. Theor Med Bioeth.
Brook RH. Using scientific information to improve quality of health care. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 1993;703:74-84.
Donabedian A. Quality assessment and assurance: unity of purpose, diversity of means. Inquiry. 1988;25(1):173-92.
Donabedian A. The quality of care: how can it be assessed? JAMA. 1988;260(12):1743-8.
Lohr KN, ed. Medicare: A Strategy for Quality Assurance. Volume I. Institute of Medicine. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 1990.
Lohr KN, Rettig RA, eds. Quality of Care and Technology Assessment. Report of a Forum of the Council on Health Care Technology. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 1988.
McNeil BJ. Shattuck Lecture − Hidden barriers to improvement in the quality of care. N Engl J Med. 2001;345(22):1612-20.
McDonald IG. Quality assurance and technology assessment: pieces of a larger puzzle. J Qual Clin Pract. 2000;20(2-3):87-94.
Auston I, Cahn MA, Selden CR. Literature search methods for the development of clinical practice guidelines. In Clinical Practice Guideline Development: Methodology Perspectives, eds., McCormick KA, Moore SR, Siegel RA. Rockville, Md: Agency for Health Care Policy Research; 1994.
Boynton J, Glanville J, McDaid D, et al. Identifying systematic reviews in MEDLINE: developing an objective approach to search strategy design. J Inform Sci. 1998;24:137-57.
Chan L, Topfer L. Health Technology Assessment on the Net: A Guide to Internet Sources of Information. Edmonton, Canada. Alberta Heritage Foundation for Medical Research, June 2003.
Counsell C. Formulating questions and locating primary studies for inclusion in systematic reviews. Ann Intern Med. 1997;127:380-7.
Goodman C. Literature Searching and Evidence Interpretation for Assessing Health Care Practices. Stockholm, Sweden: Swedish Council on Technology Assessment in Health Care; 1993.
Hopewell S, Clarke M, Lusher A, Lefebvre C, et al. A comparison of handsearching versus MEDLINE searching to identify reports of randomized controlled trials. Stat Med. 2002;21(11):1625-34.
Jadad AR, McQuay HJ. A high-yield strategy to identify randomized controlled trials for systematic reviews. Online Journal of Current Clinical Trials. 1993;Doc. No. 33.
National Library of Medicine, National Information Center on Health Services Research & Health Care Technology. Etext on Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Information Resources. http://www.nlm.nih.gov/nichsr/ehta. Accessed June 1, 2003.
NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. Accessing the evidence on clinical effectiveness. Effectiveness Matters. 2001;5(1).
Suarez-Almazor ME, Belseck E, Homik J, et al. Identifying clinical trials in the medical literature with electronic databases: MEDLINE alone is not enough. Control Clin Trials. 2000;21:476-87.
Topfer LA, Parada A, Menon D, et al. Comparison of literature searches on quality and costs for health technology assessment using the MEDLINE and EMBASE databases. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 1999;15(2):297-303.