SZodixStudyAcademic Library
ShelvesOpen access
Study · an open academic library·Metadata from OpenAlex (CC0)·Shelves·OpenAlex metadata, de-duplicated
Priority setting for health technology assessments: A systematic review of current practical approaches
1 references·11 citing·47 second hop
Priority setting for health technology assessments: A systematic review of current practical approaches (2007)Priority setting for health technology as…Evaluating non-randomised intervention studies (2003)Evaluating non-randomised int…Identifying the Need for Good Practices in Health Technology Assessment: Summary of the ISPOR HTA Council Working Group Report on Good Practices in HTA (2018)Identifying the Need for Good…Using Economic Evidence to Set Healthcare Priorities in Low‐Income and Lower‐Middle‐Income Countries: A Systematic Review of Methodological Frameworks (2016)Using Economic Evidence to Se…A model for priority setting of health technology assessment: the experience of AHP-TOPSIS combination approach (2016)A model for priority setting …Evidence in agenda setting: new directions for the Cochrane Collaboration (2013)Evidence in agenda setting: n…Health care priority setting in Norway a multicriteria decision analysis (2012)Health care priority setting …Decision-Making Criteria among National Policymakers in Five Countries: A Discrete Choice Experiment Eliciting Relative Preferences for Equity and Efficiency (2012)Decision-Making Criteria amon…Role of patient and public participation in health technology assessment and coverage decisions (2011)Role of patient and public pa…Priority setting for health technology assessment at CADTH (2010)Priority setting for health t…Health technology assessment: A comprehensive framework for evidence-based recommendations in Ontario (2009)Health technology assessment:…Health Technology Assessment in Canada: 20 Years Strong? (2009)Health Technology Assessment …Engaging the public in priority‐setting for health technology assessment: findings from a citizens’ jury (2008)Engaging the public in priori…Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Research (1963)Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: Is blinding necessary? (1996)Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology A Proposal for Reporting (2000)Systematic reviews: CRD's guidance for undertaking reviews in health care (2010)GRADE guidelines: 4. Rating the quality of evidence—study limitations (risk of bias) (2011)Assessing risk of bias in prevalence studies: modification of an existing tool and evidence of interrater agreement (2012)How attractive does a new technology have to be to warrant adoption and utilization? Tentative guidelines for using clinical and economic evaluations. (1992)Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs): The silence of the lambda (2005)Bringing ‘the public’ into health technology assessment and coverage policy decisions: From principles to practice (2006)Does deliberation make a difference? Results from a citizens panel study of health goals priority setting (2003)Centralized Drug Review Processes In Australia, Canada, New Zealand, And The United Kingdom (2006)Assessing the Added Value of Health Technologies: Reconciling Different Perspectives (2012)Factors and situations influencing the value of patient preference studies along the medical product lifecycle: a literature review (2018)Patent power in biomedical innovation: Technology governance in biomodifying technologies (2022)Fairness and competence in citizen participation : evaluating models for environmental discourse (1995)Citizens' Juries and Deliberative Democracy (2000)A discrete choice experiment investigating preferences for funding drugs used to treat orphan diseases: an exploratory study (2010)What attributes should be included in a discrete choice experiment related to health technologies? A systematic literature review (2019)Using Discrete Choice Experiments to Value Health and Health Care (2007)How to do (or not to do) … Designing a discrete choice experiment for application in a low-income country (2008)Discrete choice experiments in health economics: a review of the literature (2010)Public Preferences for Prioritizing Preventive and Curative Health Care Interventions: A Discrete Choice Experiment (2015)Healthcare decision‐making applications using multicriteria decision analysis: A scoping review (2019)Multi-criteria analysis: a manual (2009)Models, Methods, Concepts & Applications of the Analytic Hierarchy Process (2012)Prioritising public health guidance topics in the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence using the Analytic Hierarchy Process (2014)The Role of the Scale Parameter in the Estimation and Comparison of Multinomial Logit Models (1993)National Institute for Clinical Excellence and its value judgments (2004)Best–worst scaling: What it can do for health care research and how to do it (2006)Criteria Used for Priority-Setting for Public Health Resource Allocation in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: A Systematic Review (2019)Addressing health equity during design and implementation of health system reform initiatives: a scoping review and framework (2025)The Dynamics of Technological Change in Medicine (1994)Physicians’ Views Of The Relative Importance Of Thirty Medical Innovations (2001)Literature searching for clinical and cost-effectiveness studies used in health technology assessment reports carried out for the National Institute for Clinical Excellence appraisal system (2003)Methodological guidance documents for evaluation of ethical considerations in health technology assessment: a systematic review (2014)A Coefficient of Agreement for Nominal Scales (1960)The Measurement of Observer Agreement for Categorical Data (1977)Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes (2005)Strengthening health technology assessment systems in the global south: a comparative analysis of the HTA journeys of China, India and South Africa (2018)Contributions of Health Care to Longevity: A Review of 4 Estimation Methods (2019)What next after GDP-based cost-effectiveness thresholds? (2020)Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups (2007)The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials (2011)ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions (2016)Implementation of Health Technology Assessment in the Middle East and North Africa: Comparison Between the Current and Preferred Status (2020)Principles for deliberative processes in health technology assessment (2020)The Full Value of Vaccine Assessments (FVVA): a framework for assessing and communicating the value of vaccines for investment and introduction decision-making (2023)
this work references cited by second hop

References

  • 2003Evaluating non-randomised intervention studies2,905 cited

Cited by

  • 2018Identifying the Need for Good Practices in Health Technology Assessment: Summary of the ISPOR HTA Council Working Group Report on Good Practices in HTA123 cited
  • 2008Engaging the public in priority‐setting for health technology assessment: findings from a citizens’ jury106 cited
  • 2011Role of patient and public participation in health technology assessment and coverage decisions94 cited
  • 2016Using Economic Evidence to Set Healthcare Priorities in Low‐Income and Lower‐Middle‐Income Countries: A Systematic Review of Methodological Frameworks86 cited
  • 2012Health care priority setting in Norway a multicriteria decision analysis79 cited
  • 2012Decision-Making Criteria among National Policymakers in Five Countries: A Discrete Choice Experiment Eliciting Relative Preferences for Equity and Efficiency79 cited
  • 2010Priority setting for health technology assessment at CADTH75 cited
  • 2009Health Technology Assessment in Canada: 20 Years Strong?70 cited
  • 2009Health technology assessment: A comprehensive framework for evidence-based recommendations in Ontario70 cited
  • 2016A model for priority setting of health technology assessment: the experience of AHP-TOPSIS combination approach39 cited
  • 2013Evidence in agenda setting: new directions for the Cochrane Collaboration30 cited

Only edges whose both ends are imported exist here. Widen the year window, or show the whole map. Back to the work