Esandi ME, Gutiérrez-Ibarluzea I, Ibargoyen-Roteta N, Godman B. An evidence-based framework for identifying technologies of no or low-added value (NLVT). Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2020;36(1):50-57. doi: 10.1017/S0266462319000734. Epub 2019 Dec 13. PMID: 31831086.


Kristin Bakke Lysdahl, Lisa Maria Pfadenhauer, Bjørn Hofmann, Gert-Jan van der Wilt and Ansgar GerhardusMethods Assessing Sociocultural Aspects of Health Technologies: Results of a Literature Review”

Arber, M., Glanville, J., Isojarvi, J., Baragula, E., Edwards, M., Shaw, A., & Wood, H. (2018). “WHICH DATABASES SHOULD BE USED TO IDENTIFY STUDIES FOR SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS OF ECONOMIC EVALUATIONS?” International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 34(6), 547-554. doi:10.1017/S0266462318000636


Bruce Campbell, Lee Dobson, Joanne Higgins, Bernice Dillon, Mirella Marlow, Chris Pomfrett. “A New Health Technology Assessment System for Devices: The First Five Years.” IJTAHC 33:1 (2017) 19-24.

The following papers were also nominated as finalists for the award:

  • B Nemeth et al. “Overview on the current implementation of health technology assessment in the healthcare sytsem in Hungary.” IJTAHC 33:3 (2017), 333-338
  • E Parmelli et al. “Grade Evidence to Decision (ETD) framework for coverage decisions.” IJTAHC 33:2 (2017), 176-182
  • A R Gagliardi et al. “Medical device recalls in Canada from 2005 to 2015.” IJTAHC 33:6 (2017), 708-714


Julia Abelson, Frank Wagner, Deirdre DeJean, Sarah Boesveld, Franςois-Pierre Gauvin, Sally Bean, Renata Axler, Stephen Petersen, Shamara Baidoobonso , Gaylene Pron , Mita Giacomini, and John Lavis. “Public and Patient Involvement in Health Technology Assessment: A Framework for Action”. IJTAHC 32:4 (2016) 256-264.


Oriana Ciani, Britni Wilcher, Carl Rudolf Blankart, Maximilian Hatz, Valentina Prevolnik Rupel, Renata Slabe Erker, Yauheniya Varabyova and Rod S. Taylor. “Health technology assessment of medical devices: a survey of non-European union agencies.” IJTAHC 31 (January 2015) 154-165.

The following papers were also nominated as finalists for the award:

  • P. Alison Paprica et al. “From talk to action: Policy stakeholders, appropriateness, and selective disinvestment.” (Issue 4)
  • Karen Facey et al. “Improving the effectiveness and efficiency of evidence production for health technology assessment.” (Issue 4)


Julie Polisena, Tammy Clifford, Adam G. Elshaug, Craig Mitton, Erin Russell, Becky Skidmore. “Case studies that illustrate disinvestment and resource allocation decision-making processes in health care: a systematic review.” IJTACH 29 (April 2013) 174-184.


Gerald Gartlehner, Suzanne L. West, Alyssa J. Mansfield, Charles Poole, Elizabeth Tant, Linda J. Lux and Kathleen N. Lohr. “Clinical heterogeneity in systematic reviews and health technology assessments: synthesis of guidance documents and the literature.” IJTAHC 28 (January 2012), 36-43.

The following papers were also nominated as finalists for the award:

  • Ingrid Zechmeister and Ines Schumacher. “The impact of Health Technology Assessment Reports on Decision Making in Austria.” (Issue 1)
  • Michael Drummond et al. “Can we reliably benchmark Health Technology Assessment organizations?” (Issue 2)


Amanda Burls, Lorraine Caron, Ghislaine Cleret de Langavant, Wybo Dondorp, Christa Harstall, Ela Pathak-Sen, Bjørn Hofmann. Tackling ethical issues in health technology assessment: A proposed framework.” IJTAHC 27 (July 2011), 230-237.

The following papers were also nominated as finalists for the award:

  • Matthew D. Mitchell et al. “When the decision is what to decide: Using evidence inventory reports to focus health technology assessments.” (Issue 2)
  • Gert Jan van der Wilt, Hans Groenewoud and Piet van Riel. “Bridging the gap between aggregate data and individual patient management: A Bayesian approach.”(Issue 2)


Marc A. Koopmanschap, Elly A. Stolk and Xander Koolman. “Dear policy maker: Have you made up your mind? A discrete choice experiment among policy makers and other health professionals.” IJTAHC 26 (April 2010), 198-204.

The following papers were also nominated as finalists for the award:

  • D. Craig et al. “Are adverse effects incorporated in economic models? A survey of current practice.” (Issue 3)
  • Sigrid Droste, Charalabos-Markos Dintsios and Andreas Gerber. “Information on ethical issues in health technology assessment: How and where to find them.” (Issue 4)


Paul Trueman, Manjusha Hurry, Matthew Bending and John Hutton. “The feasibility of harmonizing health technology assessments across jurisdictions: A case study of drug eluting stents.” IJTAHC 25 (October 2009), 455-462.

The following papers were also nominated as finalists for the award:

  • J Elston and RS Taylor. “Use of surrogate outcomes in cost-effectiveness models: A review of UK HTA Reports.” (Issue 1)
  • Maartje G. H. Nizen et al. “Finding legitimacy for the role of budget impact in drug reimbursement decisions.” (Issue 1)
  • Irfan A. Dhalla et al. “Perspectives on NICE’s recommendations to use health technologies only in research.” (Issue 3)
  • Marcial Velasco Garrido and Sandra Mangiapane. “Surrogate outcomes in HTA: an international comparison.” (Issue 3)
  • Julie Glanville, David Kaunelis and Shalia Mensinkai. “How well do search filters perform in identifying economic evaluations in MEDLINE and EMBASE.” (Issue 4)