Littérature

1. Perleth M, Zentner A, Busse R, et al. Health Technology Assessment: Konzepte, Methoden, Praxis für Wissenschaft und Entscheidungsfindung. 2nd ed. MWV Medizinisch Wissenschaftliche Verlagsgesellschaft 2014.
2. Widrig D. Health Technology Assessment. Berlin, Heidelberg: : Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2015. http://link.springer.com/10.1007/978-3-662-46432-8 (accessed 21 Dec2015).
3. Banta D. The development of health technology assessment. Health Policy 2003;63:121–32. doi:10.1016/S0168-8510(02)00059-3
4. Sackett DL, Rosenberg WMC, Gray JAM, et al. Evidence based medicine: what it is and what it isn’t. BMJ 1996;312:71–2. doi:10.1136/bmj.312.7023.71
5. Luce BR, Drummond M, Jönsson B, et al. EBM, HTA, and CER: Clearing the Confusion. Milbank Q 2010;88:256–76. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0009.2010.00598.x
6. 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. doi:10.1017/S0266462302000284
7. Straus SE, Tetroe J, Graham I. Defining knowledge translation. Can Med Assoc J 2009;181:165–8. doi:10.1503/cmaj.081229
8. Eichler K, Hess S, Riguzzi M, et al. Impact evaluation of Swiss Medical Board reports on routine care in Switzerland: a case study of PSA screening and treatment for rupture of anterior cruciate ligament. ''Swiss Med Wkly']]' Published Online First: 29 May 2015. doi:10.4414/smw.2015.14140
9. EUnetHTA. HTA Core Model®. 2016.(accessed 31 Jan2016).
10. NICE. Guide to the methods of technology appraisal. https://www.nice.org.uk/article/pmg9/chapter/foreword (accessed 31 Jan2016).
11. IQWIG. Allgemeine Methoden - Version 4.2. 2015.https://www.iqwig.de/download/IQWiG_Methoden_Version_4-2.pdf (accessed 31 Jan2016).
12. Bundesamt für Gesundheit. Operationalisierung der Begriffe Wirksamkeit, Zweckmässigkeit und Wirtschaftlichkeit. 2011.BAG, Antragsformulare für Leistungen (accessed 1 May2016).
13. Drummond MF, Sculpher MJ, Claxton K, et al. Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes. 4 Rev ed. S.l.: : Oxford University Press 2015.
14. Brügger, Urs. Lebensqualitätsmessungen als eine Grundlage für Entscheidungen im Gesundheitswesen. Bioethica Forum 2013;6.
15. Guyatt G, Oxman AD, Akl EA, et al. GRADE guidelines: 1. Introduction—GRADE evidence profiles and summary of findings tables. J Clin Epidemiol 2011;64:383–94. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.04.026
16. EuroQol. EuroQol - Home. http://www.euroqol.org/ (accessed 1 May2016).
17. Schöffski O, Schulenburg J-MG von der. Gesundheitsökonomische Evaluationen. 4th ed. Berlin: : Springer 2011.
18. Sullivan SD, Mauskopf JA, Augustovski F, et al. Budget impact analysis-principles of good practice: report of the ISPOR 2012 Budget Impact Analysis Good Practice II Task Force. Value Health J Int Soc Pharmacoeconomics Outcomes Res 2014;17:5–14. doi:10.1016/j.jval.2013.08.2291
19. Brügger U, Horisberger B, Ruckstuhl A, et al. Health technology assessment in Switzerland: a descriptive analysis of ‘Coverage with Evidence Development’ decisions from 1996 to 2013. BMJ Open 2015;5:e007021. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2014-007021
20. Henshall C, Schuller T, Mardhani-Bayne L. USING HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT TO SUPPORT OPTIMAL USE OF TECHNOLOGIES IN CURRENT PRACTICE: THE CHALLENGE OF ‘DISINVESTMENT’. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2012;28:203–10. doi:10.1017/S0266462312000372
21. 21. OFSP. Office fédéral de la santé publique - Programme d’ETS (HTA) de la Confédération.. (accessed 1 May2016).
22. Brügger U, Plessow R, Hess S, et al. The health technology assessment of the compulsory accident insurance scheme of hand transplantation in Switzerland. J Hand Surg Eur Vol Published Online First: 18 November 2014. doi:10.1177/1753193414559463
23. NICE. Guide to the methods of technology appraisal 2013 | 6-the-appraisal-of-the-evidence-and-structured-decision-making | Guidance and guidelines | NICE. 2013.https://www.nice.org.uk/article/pmg9/chapter/6-The-appraisal-of-the-evidence-and-structured-decision-making (accessed 1 May2016).
24. Drummond M, de Pouvourville G, Jones E, et al. A comparative analysis of two contrasting European approaches for rewarding the value added by drugs for cancer: England versus France. PharmacoEconomics 2014;32:509–20. doi:10.1007/s40273-014-0144-z
25. 25. Office fédéral de la santé publique [[http://www.bag.admin.ch/themen/krankenversicherung/06492/07568/index.html?lang=fr|Instructions concernant la Liste des spécialités (LS).]. 2013.(accessed 31 Jan2016).
26. Gerber, Michelle, Kraft, Esther, Bosshard, Christoph. Overuse - unnötige Behandlungen als Qualitätsproblem. SAEZ 2016;97:236–43.
27. smartermedicine.ch | Weniger Medizin kann mehr sein. http://www.smartermedicine.ch/ (accessed 1 May2016).

Page d’aperçu du chapitre HTA