1. Battista, RN, Banta, HD, Jonsson, E, Hodge, M, Gelbland, H. Lessons from the eight countries. Health Policy. 1994;30:397–421.
2. Battista, RN, Lance, J-M, Lehoux, P, Regnier, G. Health technology assessment and the regulation of medical devices and procedures in Quebec: Synergy, collusion, or collision? Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 1999;15:593–601.
3. Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health. FAQ. Ottawa, Canada: Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health. http://www.cadth.ca/index.php/en/hta/faq (accessed December 23, 2009).
4. Chou, R, Helfand, M. Challenges in systematic reviews that assess treatment harms. Ann Intern Med. 2005;142 (pt 2):1090–1099.
5. Cookson, R, Maynard, A. Health technology assessment in Europe: Improving clarity and performance. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2000;16:639–650.
6. DeJean, D, Giacomini, M, Schwartz, L, Miller, FA. Ethics in Canadian health technology assessment: A descriptive review. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2009;25:463–469.
7. Draborg, E, Anderson, CK. Recommendations in health technology assessments worldwide. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2006;22:155–160.
8. Draborg, E, Gyrd-Hansen, D. Time-trends in health technology assessments: An analysis of developments in composition of international health technology assessments from 1989 to 2002. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2005;21:492–498.
9. Draborg, E, Gyrd-Hansen, D, Poulsen, PB, Horder, M. International comparison of the definition and the practical application of health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2005;21:89–95.
10. Eisenberg, JM. Ten lessons for evidence-based technology assessment. JAMA. 1999;282:1865–1869.
11. EUnetHTA Work Package 5 Members. Applicability testing of WP5 toolkit – Round two: Summary report. Southampton, England: NIHR Coordinating Centre for Health Technology Assessment (NCCHTA); 2008.
12. Fretheim, A, Munabi-Babigumira, S, Oxman, AD, Lavis, JN, Lewin, S. SUPPORT Tools for evidence-informed health Policymaking (STP) 6: Using research evidence to address how an option will be implemented. Health Res Policy Syst. 2009;7 (Suppl 1):S6.
13. Giacomini, M. The which-hunt: Assembling health technologies for assessment and rationing. J Health Polit Policy Law. 1999;24:715–758.
14. Goodman, CS, Ahn, R. Methodological approaches of health technology assessment. Int J Med Inform. 1999;56:97–105.
15. GRADE Working Group. Education and debate: Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ. 2004;328:1490–1494.
16. Granados, A, Jonsson, E, Banta, HD, et al. EUR-ASSESS project subgroup report on dissemination and impact. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 1997;13:220–286.
17. Hailey, D. Toward transparency in health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2003;19:1–7.
18. Haynes, RB. bmjupdates+, a new free service for evidence-based clinical practice. Evid Based Nurs. 2005;8:39.
19. Haynes, RB, Cotoi, C, Holland, J, et al. Second-order peer review of the medical literature for clinical practitioners. JAMA. 2006;295:1801–1808.
20. Haynes, RB, Holland, J, Cotoi, C, et al. McMaster PLUS: A cluster randomized clinical trial of an intervention to accelerate clinical use of evidence-based information from digital libraries. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2006;13:593–600.
21. International Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment. A checklist for health technology assessment reports. Stockholm, Sweden: INAHTA Secretariat; 2001.
22. International Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment. HTA resources: Definitions – technology assessment. Stockholm, Sweden: International Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment. http://www.inahta.org (accessed December 23, 2009).
23. Jonsson, E, Banta, D. Management of health technologies: An international view. BMJ. 1999;319:1293.
24. Lavis, JN. How can we support the use of systematic reviews in policymaking? PLoS Med. 2009;6:e1000141.
25. Lavis, JN, Davies, HTO, Oxman, AD, et al. Towards systematic reviews that inform health care management and policy-making. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2005;10 (Suppl 1):S1:35–S1:48.
26. Lavis, JN, Posada, FB, Haines, A, Osei, E. Use of research to inform public policymaking. Lancet. 2004;364:1615–1621.
27. Lavis, JN, Wilson, MG, Oxman, AD, et al. SUPPORT Tools for evidence-informed health Policymaking (STP) 5: Using research evidence to frame options to address a problem. Health Res Policy Syst. 2009;7 (Suppl 1):S5.
28. Lavis, JN, Wilson, MG, Oxman, AD, Lewin, S, Fretheim, A. SUPPORT Tools for evidence-informed health Policymaking (STP) 4: Using research evidence to clarify a problem. Health Res Policy Syst. 2009;7 (Suppl 1):S4.
29. Lehoux, P, Blume, S. Technology assessment and the sociopolitics of health technologies. J Health Polit Policy Law. 2000;25:1083–1120.
30. Lehoux, P, Denis, JL, Tailliez, S, Hivon, M. Dissemination of health technology assessments: Identifying the visions guiding an evolving policy innovation in Canada. J Health Polit Policy Law. 2005;30:603–641.
31. Lehoux, P, Tailliez, S, Denis, JL, Hivon, M. Redefining health technology assessment in Canada: Diversification of products and contextualization of findings. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2004;20:325–336.
32. Lomas, J, Culyer, T, McCutcheon, C, McAuley, L, Law, S. Conceptualizing and combining evidence for health system guidance. Ottawa, Canada: Canadian Health Services Research Foundation; 2005.
33. McGregor, M, Brophy, JM. End-user involvement in health technology assessment (HTA) development: A way to increase impact. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2005;21:263–267.
34. Mears, R, Taylor, R, Littlejohns, P, Dillon, A. Review of international health technology assessment. London, England: National Institute for Clinical Excellence; 2000.
35. Menon, D. An assessment of health technology assessment in Canada. Can J Public Health. 2000;91:120.
36. Menon, D, Topfer, LA. Health technology assessment in Canada: A decade in review. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2000;16:896–902.
37. Office of Technology Assessment. Development of medical technologies: Opportunities for assessment. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office; 1976.
38. Oxman, AD, Guyatt, GH. A consumers' guide to subgroup analyses. Ann Intern Med. 1992;116:78–84.
39. Pignone, M, Saha, S, Hoerger, T, Lohr, KN, Teutsch, S, Mandelblatt, J. Challenges in systematic reviews of economic analyses. Ann Intern Med. 2005;142 (pt 2):1073–1090.
40. Tsikata, S, Robinson, V, Petticrew, M. Do Cochrane systematic reviews contain useful information about health equity? Barcelona, Spain: 11th Cochrane Colloquium; 2003.
41. Velasco Garrido, M, Busse, R. Health technology assessment: An introduction to objectives, role of evidence and structures in Europe. Copenhagen, Denmark: WHO Regional Office for Europe/ European Observatory on Health Systems and Policies; 2005.
42. Velasco Garrido, M, Gerhardus, A, Røttingen, JA, Busse, R. Developing health technology assessment to address health care system needs. Health Policy. 2010;94:196–202.
43. Velasco Garrido, M, Perleth, M, Drummond, M, et al. Best practice in undertaking and reporting health technology assessments: Working group 4 report. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2002;18:361–422.
44. Velasco Garrido, M, Zentner, A, Busse, R. Health systems, health policy and health technology assessment. In: Velasco Garrido, M, Kristensen, FB, Nielsen, CP, Busse, R, eds. Health technology assessment and health policy-making in Europe: Current status, challenges and potential. Copenhagen, Denmark: World Health Organization; 2008:53–79.
45. World Health Organization. The Mexico statement on health research: Knowledge for better health: Strengthening health systems. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; 2004.
46. World Health Organization. World report on knowledge for better health: Strengthening health systems. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; 2004.
47. World Health Organization. The Bamako call to action on research for health: Strengthening research for health, development, and equity. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; 2008.