Why do health economists promote technology adoption rather than the search for efficiency? A proposal for a change in our approach to economic evaluation in health care

Acknowledgments Financial Support: HERU and HSRU receive a core grant from the Chief Scientist’s Office of the Scottish Government Health and Social Care Directorates, and the Centre for Clinical epidemiology & Evaluation is funded by Vancouver Coastal Health Authority. The model used for the illustrative case study in this paper was developed as part of a NHS Technology Assessment Review, funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment Program (project number 09/146/01). The views and opinions expressed in this paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Scottish Government, NHS, Vancouver Coastal Health, NIHR HTA Program or the Department of Health. The authors wish to thank Kathleen Boyd and members of the audience at the UK Health Economists Study Group, for comments received on an earlier version of this paper. We also wish to thank Cynthia Fraser (University of Aberdeen) for literature searches undertaken to inform the manuscript, and Mohsen Sadatsafavi (University of British Columbia) for comments on an earlier draft

GRADE Evidence to Decision (EtD) frameworks : A systematic and transparent approach to making well-informed healthcare choices. 1. Introduction

Funding: Work on this article has been partially funded by the European Commission FP7 Program (grant agreement 258583) as part of the DECIDE project. Sole responsibility lies with the authors; the European Commission is not responsible for any use that may be made of the information contained therein.

GRADE Evidence to Decision (EtD) frameworks : a systematic and transparent approach to making well informed healthcare choices. 2: Clinical practice guidelines

Funding: Work on this article has been partially funded by the European Commission FP7 Program (grant agreement 258583) as part of the DECIDE project. Sole responsibility lies with the authors; the European Commission is not responsible for any use that may be made of the information contained therein.

A critical review of both the synthesis approach and the receptor profile of the 8-chloro-1-(2′,4′-dichlorophenyl)-N-piperidin-1-yl-1,4,5,6-tetrahydrobenzo[6,7]cyclohepta[1,2-c]pyrazole-3-carboxamide and analogue derivatives

We thank European Commission (project “PET BRAIN: Mapping the brain with PET radiolabeled cannabinoid CB1 ligands”; FP7-People-2009-IAPP; Grant Agreement N.25142).