Cross-national comparison of technology assessment processes

Abstract

Critical issues for future technology assessment efforts are making assessment processes more consistent, transparent, and evidence-based; formalizing the inclusion of economic and ethical considerations; and making more explicit the prioritization process for selecting technologies for assessment and reassessment.

Assessing the Reporting and Scientific Quality of Meta-Analyses of Randomized Controlled Trials of Treatments for Anxiety Disorders

“…In a health technology assessment review of 4 agencies (Veterans Affairs Technology Assessment Program, National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health, Agencia de Evaluación de Tecnologías Sanitaris [Spain]), as many as 21% of studies used a systematic review method in their evaluation. 13 Assessing the scientific and reporting quality standards of meta-analyses is critical, given the important applications of such research. Two bodies of work address quality of meta-analytic studies: the Quality of Reporting of Meta-Analyses (QUOROM) 14 and the Overview Quality Assessment Questionnaire (OQAQ).…”

Time-trends in health technology assessments: An analysis of developments in composition of international health technology assessments from 1989 to 2002

“…A few other studies exist that focus on HTA methodology, but none of them have included a time perspective. Finally, García-Altés et al (7) reviewed sixty-one HTA reports but restricted their sample to four HTA organizations, restricted their study period to 1999-2001, and had no time perspective in their analysis. The weakness of this study was that it was not based on actual review of the HTA report but relied on the HTA institutions answers to a questionnaire.…”

What aspects of the health technology assessment process recommended by international health technology assessment agencies received the most attention in Poland in 2008?

“…The How the assessment has been undertaken (10,11) Have organizational consequences been appropriately discussed (budget impact, long-and short-term changes in healthcare utilization patterns)? Of the sixty-nine reports reviewed, contact details of authors were provided by sixty-seven reports (97 percent) and conflicts of interest were declared in sixty-six appraisals (96 percent).…”