Literatur

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. 12. Office fédéral de la santé publique. Opérationalisation des critères d’efficacité, d’adéquation et d’économicité. 2011.OFSP, Formulaires pour la demande de prise en charge des prestations (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. BAG. Bundesamt für Gesundheit - HTA-Programm des Bundes. (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. Bundesamt für Gesundheit. Handbuch betreffend die Spezialitätenliste (SL). 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).

Übersichtsseite Kapitel HTA