Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Are Health Technology Assessments a reliable tool in the analysis of the clinical value of PET in oncology? Who audits the auditors?

  • Editorial
  • Published:
European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging Aims and scope Submit manuscript

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1. Nosography: disease description; the term is derived from the Greek word nosos, meaning disease.

References

  1. Levi H. George de Hevesy. Copenhagen: Rhodos, 1985.

  2. Chievitz O, Bohr N, de Hevesy G. Radioactive indicators in the study of phosphorous metabolism in rats. Nature 1935; 136:754.

    Google Scholar 

  3. PET, the fastest growing medical technology ever. www.frost.com

  4. WWW.consort-statement.org

  5. Clinical evidence, 1st edn. BMJ Publishing Group, 1999.

  6. Wulff HR, Gøtzsche P. Rational diagnosis and treatment. Evidence-based clinical decision-making, 3rd edn. Oxford: Blackwell Science, 2000.

  7. Smiseth OA, Myhre ES, Aas M, et al. Positron emissions tomography (PET). The Norwegian Centre for Health Technology Assessment, SMM, 2000, Oslo. SMM report 8/2000.

  8. Redegørelse vedrørende klinisk PET-skanning med FDG—med særlig henblik på kræftdiagnostik. Copenhagen: Danish National Board of Health, Center for Evaluation and Health Technology Assessment, 2001.

  9. PET (positron emissions tomografi), Anbefalinger for udbygning af PET og FDG produktion. Copenhagen: Danish National Board of Health, 2002.

  10. Ionannidis JPA, Lau J. FDG-PET for the diagnosis and management of soft tissue sarcoma. Rockville: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, technology assessment, 2002, www.cms.gov/coverage/83b-iii.asp.

  11. Positron emission tomography, part 2i. Medical Services Advisory Committee. Canberra: Medical Services Advisory Committee, 2001.

  12. Bradbury I, Bonell E, Boynton J, et al. Positron emission tomography (PET) imaging in cancer management. Health Technology Assessment Report 2, Glasgow: Health Technology Board for Scotland, 2002.

  13. Positron emission tomography. Comite d'Evaluation et de Diffusion des Innovations Technologiques. Paris: HTA, CEDIT, 2001.

  14. Rodriguez Garrido M, Asencio del Barrio C, Gomez Martinez MV, et al. PET with 18FDG on clinical oncology. Madrid: Agencia de Evaluacion de Technologias Sanitarias, 2001.

  15. Robert G, Milne R. Positron emission tomography: establishing priorities for health technology assessment. Health Technology Assessment, vol 3, no 16. UK HTA, 1999.

  16. Pieterman RM, van Putten JW, Meuzelaar JJ, et al. Preoperative staging of non-small cell lung cancer with positron-emission tomography. N Engl J Med 2000; 343:290–292.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Tinteren HV, Hoekstra O, Smit EF, et al. Effectiveness of positron emission tomography in the preoperative assessment of patients with suspected non-small-cell lung cancer: the PLUS multicentre randomised trial. Lancet 2002; 359:1388–1392.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Nuclear Medicine and PET, Copenhagen University Hospital, Rigshospitalet, Denmark

    Liselotte Højgaard

Authors
  1. Liselotte Højgaard
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Liselotte Højgaard.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Højgaard, L. Are Health Technology Assessments a reliable tool in the analysis of the clinical value of PET in oncology? Who audits the auditors?. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 30, 637–641 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-003-1203-4

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-003-1203-4

Search

Navigation