2. Australia New Zealand Therapeutic Products Authority. About the trans Tasman therapeutic products agency project. http://www.anztpa.org/about.htm. Accessed 1 February 2008.
3. Autti-Rämö I, Mäkelä M. Ethical evaluation in health technology assessment reports: An eclectic approach. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2007;23:1–8.
4. Banta D, Oortwijn W. Introduction: Health technology assessment and the European Union. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2000;16:299–302.
5. Banta D, Oortwijn W. Conclusion: Health technology assessment and health care in the European Union. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2000;16:626-35.
6. Banta D. The development of health technology assessment. Health Policy. 2003;63:121–132.
7. Banta HD, Werko L, Cranovsky R, et al. Report from the EUR-ASSESS Project. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 1997;13:133–340.
8. Cappuccio FP, Oakeshott P, Strazzullo P, Kerry SM. Application of Framingham risk estimates to ethnic minorities in United Kingdom and implications for primary prevention of heart disease in general practice: Cross sectional population based study. BMJ. 2002;325:1271–1274.
9. Cranovsky R, Matillion Y, Banta HD. EUR-ASSESS project subgroup on coverage. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 1997;13:287–332.
10. Culyer AJ, Lomas J. Deliberative processes and evidence-informed decision-making in health care: Do they work and how might we know? Evid Policy. 2006;2:357–371.
11. Detsky AS. Guidelines for economic analysis of pharmaceutical products: A draft for Ontario and Canada. Pharmacoeconomics. 1993;3:354–361.
12. Drummond MF, Dubois D, Garattini L, et al. Current trends in the use of pharmacoeconomics and outcomes research in Europe. Value Health. 1999;2:323–332.
14. Greiner W, Weijnen T, Nieuwenhuizen M, et al. A single European currency for EQ-5D health states. Results from a six-country study. Eur J Health Econ. 2003;4:222–231.
15. Grieve R, Hutton J, Green C. Selecting methods for the prediction of future events in cost-effectiveness models: A decision-framework and example from the cardiovascular field. Health Policy. 2003;64:311–324.
16. Hailey D. Health technology assessment in Canada: Diversity and evolution. Med J Aust. 2007;187:286–288.
17. Haynes B. Can it work? Does it work? Is it worth it? The testing of healthcare interventions is evolving. BMJ. 1999;319:652–653.
18. Henry D. The Australian guidelines for subsidisation of pharmaceuticals. Pharmacoeconomics. 1992;2:422–426.
19. Hjelmgren J, Berggren F, Andersson F. Health economic guidelines—similarities, differences and some implications. Value Health. 2001;4:225–250.
20. Hofmann B. Toward a procedure for integrating moral issues in health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2005;21:312–318.
21. Hutton J, McGrath C, Frybourg J-M, et al. Framework for describing and classifying decision-making systems using technology assessment to determine the reimbursement of health technologies (fourth hurdle systems). Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2006;22:10–18.
22. International Conference of Harmonisation. www.ich.org. Accessed 1 February 2008.
23. Jonsson E, Banta HD, Henshall C, Sampietro-Colom L. Executive summary of the ECHTA/ACAHI Project. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2002;18:213–217.
24. Jonsson E, Banta HD, Henshall C, Sampietro-Colom L. Summary report of the ECHTA/ECAHI Project. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2002;18:218–237.
25. Juillet Y. Internationalization of regulatory requirements. Fundam Clin Pharmacol. 2003;17:21–25.
26. McDaid D. Co-ordinating health technology assessment in Canada: A European perspective. Health Policy. 2003;63:205–213.
27. Menon D, Topfer LA. Health technology assessment in Canada. A decade in review. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2000;16:896–902.
28. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE). Social value judgements: Principles for the development of NICE guidance. London: NICE; 2007.
29. Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee. Guidelines for the pharmaceutical industry on preparation of submissions to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee: Including major submissions involving economic analyses. Woden, Australia: PBAC; 1995.
30. Rockfold FW. Industry perspectives on ICH guidelines. Stat Med. 2002;21:2949–2957.
31. Sanders JM. Challenges, choices and Canada. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2002;18:199–202.
32. Sassi F. The European way to health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2001;16:282–290.
33. Taylor RS, Drummond MF. Inclusion of cost effectiveness in licensing requirements of new drugs. BMJ. 2004;329:972–975.
34. Watt A, Cameron A, Sturm L, et al. Rapid versus full systematic reviews: An inventory of current methods and practice in health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2008;24:133–139.