Article Title:A Review of the Economic Tools for Assessing New Medical Devices

ONLINE RESOURCE 1

This resource provides the search strategies and sources to identify:

a)Unique characteristics and methods;

b)Economic evaluations;

c)Data extraction table.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION – SEARCH STRATEGIES AND SOURCES FOR UNIQUE CHARACTERISTICS AND METHODS

A.1Find Guidance for Australia, Canada, Sweden, Denmark and France

Guidance was identified by searching the following websites on 20 January 2012:

1.1Australia: Medical Services Advisory Committee (MSAC)

1.2Canada: CADTH.

1.3Sweden: SBU

1.4Denmark: National Board of Health

1.5France: HAS

A.2Searches For Methods Papers on Unique Characteristics of Devices and Diagnostics and Also Papers by Known Authors in the Field Were Undertaken In a Series of Databases

Econlit <1961 to December 2011> (OvidSP), searched 19 January 2012:

1.medical device$1.ti,ab. (66)

2.from 1 keep 7,13,25-29,34,41,47,49-50 (12)

3.((diagnostic or diagnosis) adj4 (evaluat$ or assess$ or regulat$ or reimburse$)).ti,ab. (88)

4.from 3 keep 31,35,71,73,75 (5)

5.(medical technolog$ adj5 (evaluat$ or assess$ or regulat$ or reimburs$)).ti,ab. (13)

6.5 not (1 or 3) (11)

7.from 6 keep 1,3,5-6 (4)

8.(DEVICE$1adj5 (evaluat$ or assess$ or regulat$ or reimburs$)).ti,ab. (75)

9.8 not (1 or 3 or 5) (60)

10.drummond m$.au. (48)

11.from 10 keep 13 (1)

12.hutton j$.au. and (device$ or diagnos$ or technol$).ti,ab. (2)

13.from 12 keep 2 (1)

14.taylor r$.au. and (device$ or diagnos$ or technol$ or evaluat$ or reimburs$ or assess$).ti,ab. (17)

15.hutton j$.au. and (evaluat$ or reimburs$ or assess$).ti,ab. (6)

16.tarricone r$.au. (1)

17.or/2,4,7,11 (22)

Ovid MEDLINE(R) In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations and Ovid MEDLINE(R) <1946 to Present>, searched 19 January 2012:

1drummond m$.au. (511)

2hutton j$.au. and (device$ or diagnos$ or technol$).ti,ab. (87)

3hutton j$.au. and (evaluat$ or reimburs$ or assess$).ti,ab. (145)

4tarricone r$.au. (18)

5taylorr.au. and (device$ or diagnos$ or technol$ or evaluat$ or reimburs$ or assess$).ti,ab. (387)

6taylorrs.au. and (device$ or diagnos$ or technol$ or evaluat$ or reimburs$ or assess$).ti,ab. (113)

7or/1-6 (1216)

8limit 7 to yr="2007 -Current" (355)

9from 8 keep 1,24,34,57,63,68,90,147,160-161,166,186,192,223,228,248-249,264,312 (19)

In addition to these strategies the ‘find similar’ and ‘citing references’ options were used with results from set 9 and these identified some further papers.

ISPOR searched 19 January 2012:

Search terms: devices

2011-2008

Search term: diagnostic, 2011-2008

IDEAS searched 19 January 2012:

249 records and of these 5 records were downloaded.

International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care was searched full text on 24 January 2012:

Searched ‘device’ (picks up devices as well via automatic truncation)

Searched ‘diagnostic ‘

NBER searched 24 January 2012:

Searched ‘medical devices economic evaluation’ – full text search of publications

Searched ‘diagnostic economic evaluation’ – full text search of publications

A.3Searches for Research on Specific Methods

Econlit <1961 to December 2011> (OvidSP), searched 24 January 2012:

1cost consequence$1.ti,ab. (21)

2costminimi$.ti,ab. (578)

3(earlymodel$1 or early modelling).ti,ab. (20)

4((bayes or bayesian) adj5 (economic evaluation$1 or model$1 or modelling or cost effectiveness)).ti,ab. (1852)

5(valueadj3 information).ti,ab. (1025)

6(valueadj3 sampling).ti,ab. (9)

7(elicitation or eliciting).ti,ab. (760)

8or/1-7 (4234)

9limit 8 to yr="1990 -Current" (3950)

14(health or medical or device$1 or diagnos$ or technolog$).ti,ab,jw. (85420)

159 and 14 (610)

1615 not 13 (589)

HMIC (OvidSP) 1979 to Nov 2011, searched 24 January 2012:

1cost consequence$1.ti,ab. (21)

2costminimi$.ti,ab. (578)

3(earlymodel$1 or early modelling).ti,ab. (20)

4((bayes or bayesian) adj5 (economic evaluation$1 or model$1 or modelling or cost effectiveness)).ti,ab. (1852)

5(valueadj3 information).ti,ab. (1025)

6(valueadj3 sampling).ti,ab. (9)

7(elicitation or eliciting).ti,ab. (760)

8or/1-3

9or/4-7

10(medical technolog$ or healthcare technol$ or care technol$ or device$1 or diagnos$ or technolog$).ti,ab,jw. (12249)

119 and 10 (31)

128 or 11 (161)

MEDLINE Ovid MEDLINE(R) In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations and Ovid MEDLINE(R) 1946 to Present, searched 24 January 2012:

1(costconsequence$1adj5 (medical technolog$ or healthcare technol$ or care technol$ or device$1 or diagnos$ or technolog$ assess$)).mp. [mp=title, abstract, original title, name of substance word, subject heading word, protocol supplementary concept, rare disease supplementary concept, unique identifier] (2)

2(cost minim$ adj5 (medical technolog$ or healthcare technol$ or care technol$ or device$1 or diagnos$ or technolog$ assess$)).mp. (18)

3(early adj3 model$ adj5 (medical technolog$ or healthcare technol$ or care technol$ or device$1 or diagnos$ or technolog$ assess$)).mp. (56)

4(bayesianadj5 (medical technolog$ or healthcare technol$ or care technol$ or device$1 or diagnos$ or technolog$ assess$)).mp. (225)

5(value adj3 information adj5 (medical technolog$ or healthcare technol$ or care technol$ or device$1 or diagnos$ or technolog$ assess$)).mp. (107)

6(value adj3 sampling adj5 (medical technolog$ or healthcare technol$ or care technol$ or device$1 or diagnos$ or technolog$ assess$)).mp. (17)

7((elicitation or eliciting) adj5 (medical technolog$ or healthcare technol$ or care technol$ or device$1 or diagnos$ or technolog$ assess$)).mp. (59)

8or/1-7 (483)

9limit 8 to (english language and yr="1990 -Current") (331)

B.DETAILS OF SEARCH AND SAMPLING STRATEGY FOR ECONOMIC EVALUATIONS

Details of search and sampling strategy taken from NUTH, Regional Medical Physics Department Cost Consequences of Innovation Research Topic; E Colechin, C Rudland and A Sims, March 2011

Method (Section 3.2)

From previous experience of performing literature searches relating to medical devices and diagnostics, including ‘AND medical device’ in the search term leads to relevant papers being excluded as the term medical device does not generally appear in the title or abstract or in the list of keywords. In general, if a paper is specifically about a device, it will use its name and/or type to describe it rather than the generic term medical device. Using the term ‘OR medical device’ increases sensitivity at the expense of specificity. The same is true for the terms diagnostics and innovation. Due to difficulties in identifying or classifying when a medical device or diagnostic is innovative, we have assumed that at the time of publication the medical technology referred to in each paper was innovative.

The approach taken in defining the search terms for this research question was to optimise sensitivity. A drawback to using sensitive search terms is the high number of results returned. Where high numbers (i.e. >400 results) were returned, we randomly selected 100 abstracts from each year between 2007 and 2010, to give a representative sample of the results.

Two search terms were applied in MEDLINE to ascertain relevant papers:

•“Systematic review” [any field];

•“Meta-analysis” [any field] OR meta-analysis [mesh heading].

One reviewer examined the abstracts, identifying papers that related directly to a medical device, diagnostic, or technology, or considered a procedure or intervention that used a specific medical technology. Papers were excluded if they related to:

•Disease;

•Pharmaceuticals;

•Clinical procedures or interventions not specifically using medical technology;

•Methodology of systematic reviews or meta-analysis.

Three search terms were applied in MEDLINE to ascertain relevant papers:

•“Cost consequences” [any field];

•Cost-benefit analysis [mesh heading] OR “cost effectiveness” [any field] OR “cost minimisation” [any field] OR “cost utility” [any field];

•Models, economic [mesh heading] OR “economic modelling” [any field].

One reviewer examined the abstracts, identifying papers that related directly to a medical device, diagnostic, or technology or considered a procedure or intervention that used specific medical technology. Papers were excluded if they related to:

•Disease;

•Pharmaceuticals;

•Animals;

•Ecology;

•Clinical procedures or interventions not specifically using medical technology;

•Methodology of economic evaluation techniques.

Results (Section 5.3)

The search term “cost consequence” returned 166 results (February 2011). Of these, eleven were relevant to medical devices and diagnostics.

The search term considering other economic evaluation techniques (i.e. cost-benefit analysis, cost effectiveness analysis, cost minimisation analysis and cost utility analysis) returned 60,173 results (February 2011). Of these, 3,226 papers were published in 2010, 3,610 papers in 2009, 3,338 papers in 2008 and 3,189 papers in 2007. Of the 100 randomly selected papers for each of these years, eight in 2010 related to medical devices and diagnostics, eight in 2009, six in 2008 and two in 2007.

The search term considering economic modelling returned 4,386 results (February 2011). Of these, 397 papers were published in 2010, 459 papers in 2009, 415 papers in 2008 and 322 papers in 2007. Of the 100 randomly selected papers for each of these years seven in 2010 related to medical devices and diagnostics, nine in 2009, four in 2008 and six in 2007.

The 11 papers identified in the cost consequences papers considered eight medical devices or technologies, listed in Table B.1. The 24 papers identified in the economic evaluation sample considered 23 medical devices, technologies, and diagnostics. The 26 papers identified in the economic modelling sample considered 24 medical devices and technologies (Table B.1).

Table B.1:List of medical devices, technologies and diagnostics included in the samples of identified papers for cost consequences, economic evaluation techniques and economic modelling samples

Cost consequences papers / Economic evaluation techniques sample / Economic modelling sample
Blood cell salvage [105] / Array-based comparative genomic hybridisation [134] / Adjustable gastric band [142]
Cochlear implant [104] / Bare metal stent [137, 149]
Coronary CT angiography [111] / Bone fixation plates and screws [116] / Bio-electric stimulation therapy [157]
Electronic decision support system [110] / Cardiac imaging [133] / Carotid artery stent [135]
Cardiac resynchronisation therapy devices [69] / Coronary computed tomography angiography [154, 156]
High-energy transurethral microwave thermotherapy [103]
C-leg microprocessor-controlled prosthetic knee [114] / Dental bridge [145]
Intraocular lens [106-109] / Dental implant [145]
Spinal cord stimulation [102] / CT [128] / Doppler ultrasound [151, 156]
Ultrafiltration [101] / Cyberknife[132] / Drug-eluting stent [137, 140, 147-149]
Dual X-ray absorptiometry scanners [124]
Dual X-ray absorptiometry scanners [124]
Electrocautery devices [131]
Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation machine [125] / Electrocardiogram [141]
Endoscopy [153]
Heat and moisture exchangers [121] / Endovascular aneurysm repair [146]
Hip prostheses [113, 130] / Intrathecal baclofen therapy [144]
Implantable cardiac devices [127] / Magnetic resonance angiography [156]
Implantable cardioverter defibrillators [126]
Optical computed tomography [155]
Orthopaedic implants [120] / PET [143]
PET [123] / PET/CT [158]
Photodynamic therapy lamps [118] / Photodynamic therapy [139]
Robotic-assisted surgery system [117] / Radiofrequency ablation [136]
Stimulators for fracture healing [122] / Radiotherapy [150]
Sutures and staples [115] / Self-injectable epinephrine [159]
Ultrasonic dissector [112] / Semi-quantitative urine dipsticks [152]
Ureteroscopes[129]
NaviVision and Arcadis Orbis image guidance systems [119] / Total body hypothermia [138]

Please note the numbers in this list link the paper to Table B.1.

69.Mele D, Toselli T, Pratola C, Artale P and Ferrari R. Cardiac resynchronization therapy and reduction of mortality in hear failure: a proven association. G Ital Cardiol 2007, 8(12):760-769.

101.Bradley S, Levy W and Veenstra D. Cost-consequences of ultrafiltration for acute heart failure: a decision model analysis. Circulation. Cardiovascular Quality & Outcomes 2009, 2(6):566-573.

102.Hornberger J, Kumar K, Verhulst E, Clark M and Hernandez J. Rechargeable spinal cord stimulation versus non-rechargeable system for patients with failed back surgery syndrome: a cost-consequences analysis. Clinical Journal of Pain 2008, 24(3):244-252.

103.De La Rosette J, Floratos D, Severens J, Kiemeney L, Debruyne F and Pilar Laguna M. Transurethral resection vs microwave thermotherapy of the prostate: a cost-consequences analysis. BJU International 2003, 92(7):713-718.

104.Cheng AK, Rubin HR, Powe NR, Mellon NK, Fracis HW and Niparko JK. Cost-utility analysis of the cochlear implant in children. JAMA 2000, 287(7):850-856.

105.Duffy G and Tolley K. Cost analysis of autologous blood transfusion, using cell salvage, compared with allogeneic blood transfusion. Transfusion Medicine 1997, 7(3):189-196.

106.Laurendeau C, Lafuma A and Berdeaux G. Modelling lifetime cost consequences of toric compared with standard IOLs in cataract surgery of astigmatic patients in four European countries. Journal of Medical Economics 2009, 12(3):230-237.

107.Lafuma A and Berdeaux G. Modelling lifetime cost consequences of ReSTOR in cataract surgery in four European countries. BMC Ophthalmology 2008, 8:12.

108.De Vries N, Laurendeau C, Lafuma A, Berdeaux G and Nuijts R. Lifetime costs and effectiveness of ReSTOR compared with a monofocal IOL and Array-SA40 in the Netherlands. Eye 2010, 24(4):663-672.

109.Lafuma A and Berdeaux G. Modelling lifetime cost consequences of ReSTOR for presbyopia in four European countries. Eye 2009, 23(5):1072-1080.

110.Poley M, Edelenbos K, Mosseveld M, van Wijk M, de Bakker D, van der Lei J and Rutten-van Molken M. Cost consequences of implementing an electronic decision support system for ordering laboratory tests in primary care: evidence from a controlled prospective study in the Netherlands. Clinical Chemistry 2007, 53(2):213-219.

111.Cheng M, Lu B, Hu S, Marelli C, Higashi M, Patel P, Li J and Veenstra D. Optimizing CAD diagnosis in China with CT angiography. Journal of cardiovascular computed tomography 2009, 3(3):153-158.

112.Cirocchi R, D'Ajello F, Trastulli S, Santoro A, Di Rocco G, Vendettuoli D, Rondelli F, Giannotti D, Sanguinetti A, Minelli L, Redler A, Basoli A and Avenia N. Meta-analysis of thyroidectomy with ultrasonic dissector versus conventional clamp and tie.. World Journal of Surgical Oncology 2010, 8:112.

113.Davies C, Lorgelly P, Shemilt I, Mugford M, Tucker K and Macgregor A. Can choices between alternative hip prostheses be evidence based? A review of the economic evaluation literature. Cost-effectiveness & Resource Allocation 2010, 8:20.

114.Highsmith M, Kahle J, Bongiorni D, Sutton B, Groer S and Kaufman K. Safety, energy efficiency, and cost efficacy of the C-Leg for transfemoral amputees: A review of the literature. Prosthetics & Orthotics International 2010, 34(4):362-377.

115.Horisberger K, Beldi G and Candinas D. Loop ileostomy closure: comparison of cost-effectiveness between suture and stapler. World Journal of Surgery 2010, 34(12):2867-2871.

116.Jacobsen C and Obwegeser J. Are allogenic or xenogenic screws and plates a reasonable alternative to alloplastic material for osteosynthesis—A histomorphological analysis in a dynamic system. Journal of Biomechanics 2010, 43(16):3112-3117.

117.Lowrance W, Tarin T and Shariat S. Evidence-based comparison of robotic and open radical prostatectomy. TheScientificWorldJournal 2010, 10:2228-2237.

118.Sanchez A, Reza M, Blasco J and Callejo D. Effectiveness, safety, and cost-effectiveness of photodynamic therapy in Barrett's esophagus: a systematic review. Diseases of the Esophagus 2010, 23(8):633-640.

119.Watkins R, Gupta A and Watkins R. Cost-effectiveness of image-guided spine surgery. The open orthopaedics journal 2010, 4:228-233.

120.Alt V, Pavlidis T, Szalay G, Heiss C and Schnettler R. Health-economic evaluation in implant trials: design considerations. Journal of Long-Term Effects of Medical Implants 2009, 19(4):279-285.

121.Ahmed S, Mahajan J and Nadeem A. Comparison of two different types of heat and moisture exchangers in ventilated patients. Journal of Emergencies Trauma & Shock 2009, 2(3):164-169.

122.Button M, Sprague S, Gharsaa O, Latouche S and Bhandari M. Economic evaluation of bone stimulation modalities: A systematic review of the literature. Indian Journal of Orthopaedics 2009, 43(2):168-174.

123.Krug B, Van Zanten A, Pirson A, Crott R and Borght T. Activity-based costing evaluation of a [(18)F]-fludeoxyglucose positron emission tomography study. Health Policy 2009, 92(2):234-243.

124.Mueller D and Gandjour A. Cost-effectiveness of using clinical risk factors with and without DXA for osteoporosis screening in postmenopausal women. Value in Health 2009, 12(8):1106-1117.

125.Peek G, Mugford M, Tiruvoipati R, Wilson A, Allen E, Thalanany M, Hibbert C, Truesdale A, Clemens F, Cooper N, Firmin R, Elbourne D and CESAR trial collaboration. Efficacy and economic assessment of conventional ventilatory support versus extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for severe adult respiratory failure (CESAR): a multicentre randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2009, 374(9698):1351-1363.

126.Schaer B, Koller M, Sticherling C, Altmann D, Joerg L and Osswald S. Longevity of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators, influencing factors, and comparison to industry-projected longevity. Heart Rhythm 2009, 6(12):1737-1743.

127.van Hemel N. Remote monitoring of implanted cardiac devices: a plea for a nationwide exploration. Netherlands Heart Journal 2009, 17(11):434-437.

128.Bateman T. Business aspects of cardiovascular computed tomography: tackling the challenges. Jacc: Cardiovascular Imaging 2008, 1(1):111-118.

129.Dharaskar A and Mandhani A. Should flexible ureteroscope be added to our armamentarium to treat stone disease? Indian Journal of Urology 2008, 24(4):513-516.

130.Marinelli M, Soccetti A, Panfoli N and de Palma L. Cost-effectiveness of cemented versus cementless total hip arthroplasty. A Markov decision analysis based on implant cost. Journal of Orthopaedics & Traumatology 2008, 9(1):23-28.

131.Sharma S, Haji A, Vijaykumar D and Shaji A. Irrigation-coupled bipolar cautery unit: A practical, economical, and simple version. Indian Journal of Plastic Surgery 2008, 41(2):162-166.

132.Tarricone R, Aguzzi G, Musi F, Fariselli L and Casasco A. Cost-effectiveness analysis for trigeminal neuralgia: CyberKnife vs microvascular decompression. Neuropsychiatric Disease & Treatment 2008, 4(3):647-652.

133.Hendel R. Utilization management of cardiovascular imaging pre-certification and appropriateness. Jacc: Cardiovascular Imaging 2008, 1(2):241-248.

134.Wordsworth S, Buchanan J, Regan R, Davison V, Smith K, Dyer S, Campbell C, Blair E, Maher E, Taylor J and Knight SJ. Diagnosing idiopathic learning disability: a cost-effectiveness analysis of microarray technology in the National Health Service of the United Kingdom. Genomic Med 2007, 1(1-2):35-45.

135.Young KC, Holloway RG, Burgin WS and Benesch CG. A cost-effectiveness analysis of carotid artery stenting compared with endarterectomy. J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis 2010, 19(5):404-409.

136.Naugler W and Sonnenberg A. Survival and cost-effectiveness analysis of competing strategies in the management of small hepatocellular carcinoma. Liver Transplantation 2010, 16(10):1186-1194.

137.Rihal C, Ryan J, Singh M, Lennon R, Bresnahan J, Liesinger J, Gersh B, Ting H, Holmes DJ and Long K. Clinical and economic outcomes after introduction of drug-eluting stents. American Journal of Managed Care 2010, 16(8):580-587.

138.Regier D, Petrou S, Henderson J, Eddama O, Patel N, Strohm B, Brocklehurst P, Edwards A and Azzopardi D. Cost-effectiveness of therapeutic hypothermia to treat neonatal encephalopathy. Value in Health 2010, 13(6):695-702.

139.Gower E, Cassard S, Bass E, Schein O and Bressler N. A cost-effectiveness analysis of three treatments for age-related macular degeneration. Retina 2010, 30(2):212-221.

140.Remak E, Manson S, Hutton J, Brasseur P, Olivier E and Gershlick A. Cost-effectiveness of the Endeavor stent in de novo native coronary artery lesions updated with contemporary data. Eurointervention 2010, 5(7):826-832.

141.O'Connor D and Knoblauch M. Electrocardiogram testing during athletic preparticipation physical examinations. Journal of Athletic Training 2010, 45(3):265-272.

142.Anselmino M, Bammer T, Fernandez Cebrian J, Daoud F, Romagnoli G and Torres A. Cost-effectiveness and budget impact of obesity surgery in patients with type 2 diabetes in three European countries(II). Obesity Surgery 2009, 19(11):1542-1549.

143.Pertile P. An extension of the real option approach to the evaluation of health care technologies: the case of positron emission tomography. International Journal of Health Care Finance & Economics 2009, 9(3):317-332.

144.Bensmail D, Ward A, Wissel J, Motta F, Saltuari L, Lissens J, Cros S and Beresniak A. Cost-effectiveness modeling of intrathecal baclofen therapy versus other interventions for disabling spasticity. Neurorehabilitation & Neural Repair 2009, 23(6):546-552.

145.Bouchard P, Renouard F, Bourgeois D, Fromentin O, Jeanneret M and Beresniak A. Cost-effectiveness modeling of dental implant vs. bridge. Clinical Oral Implants Research 2009, 20(6):583-587.

146.Blackhouse G, Hopkins R, Bowen J, De Rose G, Novick T, Tarride J, O'Reilly D, Xie F and Goeree R. A cost-effectiveness model comparing endovascular repair to open surgical repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms in Canada. Value in Health 2009, 12(2):245-252.

147.Leon M, Kandzari D, Eisenstein E, Anstrom K, Mauri L, Cutlip D, Nikolsky E, O'Shaughnessy C, Overlie P, Kirtane A, McLaurin B, Solomon S, Douglas JJ, Popma J and ENDEAVOR IV Investigators. Late safety, efficacy, and cost-effectiveness of a zotarolimus-eluting stent compared with a paclitaxel-eluting stent in patients with de novo coronary lesions: 2-year follow-up from the ENDEAVOR IV trial (Randomized, Controlled Trial of the Medtronic Endeavor Drug [ABT-578] Eluting Coronary Stent System Versus the Taxus Paclitaxel-Eluting Coronary Stent System in De Novo Native Coronary Artery Lesions). Jacc: Cardiovascular Interventions 2009, 2(12):1208-1218.

148.Eisenstein E, Leon M, Kandzari D, Mauri L, Edwards R, Kong D, Cowper P, Anstrom K and ENDEAVOR III Investigators. Long-term clinical and economic analysis of the Endeavor zotarolimus-eluting stent versus the cipher sirolimus-eluting stent: 3-year results from the ENDEAVOR III trial (Randomized Controlled Trial of the Medtronic Endeavor Drug [ABT-578] Eluting Coronary Stent System Versus the Cypher Sirolimus-Eluting Coronary Stent System in De Novo Native Coronary Artery Lesions). Jacc: Cardiovascular Interventions 2009, 2(12):1199-1207.

149.Eisenstein E, Wijns W, Fajadet J, Mauri L, Edwards R, Cowper P, Kong D and Anstrom K. Long-term clinical and economic analysis of the Endeavor drug-eluting stent versus the Driver bare-metal stent: 4-year results from the ENDEAVOR II trial (Randomized Controlled Trial to Evaluate the Safety and Efficacy of the Medtronic AVE ABT-578 Eluting Driver Coronary Stent in De Novo Native Coronary Artery Lesions). Jacc: Cardiovascular Interventions 2009, 2(12):1178-1187.

150.Jani A and Hellman S. Early prostate cancer: hedonic prices model of provider-patient interactions and decisions. International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology, Physics 2008, 70(4):1158-1168.

151.Meads C, Cnossen J, Meher S, Juarez-Garcia A, ter Riet G, Duley L, Roberts T, Mol B, van der Post J, Leeflang M, Barton P, Hyde C, Gupta J and Khan K. Methods of prediction and prevention of pre-eclampsia: systematic reviews of accuracy and effectiveness literature with economic modelling. Health Technology Assessment (Winchester, England) 2008, 12(6):iii-iv, 1-270.