1. Academy Medical Sciences/MRC/Welcome Trust. Medical research: Assessing the benefits to society. London: Academy Medical Sciences; 2006
2. American Gastroenterologist Association. American Gastroenterologist Association medical position statement: Evaluation of dyspepsia. Gastroenterology. 2005;129:1753–1755.
3. Black, N. Evidence based policy: Proceed with care. BMJ. 2001;323;275–279.
4. Buxton, M, Hanney, S. How can payback from health services research be assessed? J Health Serv Res Policy. 1996;1:35–43.
6. Duncan, PW, Zorowitz, R, Bates, B, et al. Management of adult rehabilitation care: A clinical practice guideline. Stroke. 2005;36:e100–e143.
7. Ferguson, B, Kelly, P, Georgiou, A, et al. Assessing payback from NHS reactive research programmes. J Manag Med. 2000;14:25–36.
8. Hanney, S, Buxton, M, Green, C, Coulson, D, Raftery, J. An assessment of the impact of the NHS Health Technology Assessment Programme. Health Technol Assess. 2007;11:iii–iv, ix-xi, 1-180. http://www.ncchta.org/fullmono/mon1153.pdf.
9. Hanney, S, Gonzalez-Block, M, Buxton, M, Kogan, M. The utilisation of health research in policy-making: Concepts, examples and methods of assessment. Health Res Policy Syst. 2003;1:2.
10. Hanney, S, Grant, J, Wooding, S, Buxtom, MJ. Proposed methods for reviewing the outcomes of research: The impact of funding by the UK's ‘Arthritis Research Campaign’. Health Res Policy Syst. 2004;2:4.
11. Hanney, S, Soper, B, Buxton, M. Evaluation of the NHS R&D Methods Programme. HERG Report No.29. Uxbridge: Brunel University; 2003.
12. Jacob, R, Battista, R. Assessing technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 1993;9:564–572.
13. Jacob, R, McGregor, M. Assessing the impact of health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 1997;13:68–80.
14. Johnston, SC, Rootenberg, JD, Katrak, S, Smith, WS, Elkins, JS. Effects of a US National Institutes of Health programme of clinical trials on public health and costs. Lancet. 2006;367:1319–1327.
15. Kalra, L, Evans, A, Perez, I, et al. Alternative strategies for stroke care: A prospective randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2000;356:894–899.
16. Kalra, L, Evans, A, Perez, I, et al. A randomised controlled comparison of alternative strategies for stroke care. Health Technol Assess. 2005;9:iii–iv, 1–79.
17. Kingwell, BA, Anderson, GP, Duckett, SJ, et al. Evaluation of NHMRC funded research completed in 1992, 1997 and 2003: Gains in knowledge, health and wealth. Med J Aust. 2006;184:282–286.
18. Kogan, M, Henkel, M, Hanney, S. Government and research: Thirty years of evolution. 2nd ed. Dortrecht: Springer; 2003.
19. Kwan, P, Johnston, J, Fung, AY, et al. A systematic evaluation of payback of publicly funded health and health services research in Hong Kong. BMC Health Serv Res. 2007;7:121.
20. Shah, S, Ward, JE. Outcomes from NHMRC public health research project grants awarded in 1993. Aust N Z J Public Health. 2001;25:556–560.
21. Stryer, D, Tunis, S, Hubbard, H, Clancy, C. The outcomes of outcomes and effectiveness research: Impacts and lessons from the first decade. Health Serv Res. 2000;35 (pt 1):977–993.
22. Ward, E, King, M, Lloyd, M, et al. Randomised controlled trial of nondirective counselling, cognative-behaviour therapy and usual general practitioner care for patients with depression. I: Clinical effectiveness. BMJ. 2000;321:1383–1388.