StevensAJLongsonC. At the center of health care policy making: the use of health technology assessment at NICE. Med Decis Making. 2013;33:320–324.
2.
NeumannPJDrummondMFJonssonB. Are key principles for improved health technology assessment supported and used by health technology assessment organizations?Int J Technol Assess Health Care2010;26:71–8.
3.
DalalSRShekellePGHempelS. A pilot study using machine learning and domain knowledge to facilitate comparative effectiveness review updating. Med Decis Making. 2013;33:343–355.
4.
MavranezouliIBrazierJERowanDBarkhamM. Estimating a preference-based index from the Clinical Outcomes in Routine Evaluation–Outcome Measure (CORE-OM): valuation of CORE-6D. Med Decis Making. 2013;33:381–395.
5.
McCarronCEPullenayegumEMThabaneLGoereeRTarrideJ-E. The impact of using informative priors in a Bayesian cost-effectiveness analysis: an application of endovascular versus open surgical repair for abdominal aortic aneurysms in high risk patients. Med Decis Making. 2013;33:437–450.
6.
Gajic-VeljanoskiOCheungAMBayoumiAMTomlinsonG. The choice of a noninformative prior on between-study variance strongly affects predictions of future treatment effect. Med Decis Making. 2013;33:356-368.
7.
O’MahonyJFvan RosmalenJZauberAGvan BallegooijenM. Multicohort models in cost-effectiveness analysis: why aggregating estimates over multiple cohorts can hide useful information. Med Decis Making. 2013;33:407–414.
8.
DaviesCBriggsALorgellyPGarellickGMalchauH. The “hazards” of extrapolating survival curves. Med Decis Making. 2013;33:369–380.
9.
AfzaliHHKarnonJMerlinT. Improving the accuracy and comparability of model-based economic evaluations of health technologies for reimbursement decisions: a methodological framework for the development of reference models. Med Decis Making. 2013;33:325-332.
10.
SoaresMODumvilleJCAshbyRL. Methods to assess cost-effectiveness and value of further research when data are sparse: negative-pressure ulcers. Med Decis Making. 2013;33:415–436.
HelfandMTunisSWhitlockEP. A CTSA agenda to advance methods for comparative effectiveness research. Clin Transl Sci. 2011;4:188–98.
13.
DrummondMFMarshallD. IHE Methodology Forum: Prioritizing Methodological Research in the Evaluation of Health Technologies in Canada—Forum Summary. Edmonton, AB: Institute for Health Economics; 2010.
14.
LongworthLBojkeLSculpherMJToshJC. Bridging the gap between methods research and the needs of policy makers: a review of the research priorities of the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Int J Technol Assess HeaIth Care. 2011;27:1–8.
15.
CaroJNordESiebertU. The efficiency frontier approach to economic evaluation of health-care interventions. Health Econ. 2010;19:1128–31.
16.
SculpherMClaxtonK. Sins of omission and obfuscation: IQWIG’s guidelines on economic evaluation methods. Health Econ. 2010;19:1132–6.
17.
ClaxtonKMartinSSoaresM. Methods for the Estimation of the NICE Cost Effectiveness Threshold. Centre for Health Economics (CHE) Research Paper 81. York, UK: CHE, University of York; 2013.
