In this issue of the journal, authors from the Effective Health-Care Program of the
Agency for Healthcare Research & Quality (AHRQ) outline their approach for appraising
research evidence and providing “… understandable and actionable information for patients,
clinicians, and policy makers” [
[1]
]. The methods outlined are not controversial, and it is clear that the program of
work is of a high standard. However, in matters of health technology appraisal, the
devil is often in the detail or at least in the implementation, and it is interesting
to observe controversy emerging when vested interests are challenged.To read this article in full you will need to make a payment
Purchase one-time access:
Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online accessOne-time access price info
- For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
- For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'
Subscribe:
Subscribe to Journal of Clinical EpidemiologyAlready a print subscriber? Claim online access
Already an online subscriber? Sign in
Register: Create an account
Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect
References
- AHRQ Series Paper 1: Comparing medical interventions: AHRQ and the Effective Health-Care Program.J Clin Epidemiol. 2010; 63 (In this issue): 481-483
- Does the UK need a fourth hurdle for pharmaceutical reimbursement to encourage the more cost effective prescribing of pharmaceuticals?.Health Policy. 1999; 46: 255-265
- Promoting cost-effective prescribing: Great Britain lags behind.BMJ. 1995; 310: 955-956
- What's the evidence that NICE guidance has been implemented? Results from a national evaluation using time series analysis, audit of patients' notes, and interviews.BMJ. 2004; 329: 999-1004
- Is NICE delivering the goods?.BMJ. 2004; 329: 1003-1004
- Research on the comparative effectiveness of medical treatments: options for an expanded federal role. CBO Testimony, Subcommittee on Health, Committee on Ways and Means, US House of Representatives.Congressional Budget Office, Washington, DC2007
- Cost-effectiveness information: yes, it's important, but keep it separate, please!.Ann Intern Med. 2008; 148: 967-968
Article info
Publication history
Accepted:
January 22,
2010
Identification
Copyright
© 2010 Elsevier Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
