1) Agency for Healthcare Research & Quality (AHRQ). (https://www.ahrq.gov/)
2) AHRQ. SHARE Approach Curriculum Tools. (https://www.ahrq.gov/professionals/education/curriculum-tools/shareddecisionmaking/tools/index.html)
3) AHRQ. The Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool (PEMAT) and User's Guide. (https://www.ahrq.gov/sites/default/files/publications/files/pemat_guide.pdf
4) International Patient Decision Aids Standards (IPDAS) Collaboration. (http://ipdas.ohri.ca/)
5) IPDAS. Resources. (http://ipdas.ohri.ca/resources.html)
6) Innovative Medicines Initiative : Europe's partnership for health. (https://www.imi.europa.eu/)
7) European Medicines Agency. Benefit-risk methodology. (https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/about-us/supportresearch/benefit-risk-methodology)
8) European Medicines Agency. Benefit-risk methodology project. (https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/report/benefit-risk-methodology-project-work-package-4-report-benefit-risk-tools-processes_en.pdf)
9) PROTECT Benefit-Risk Website. (http://www.protectbenefitrisk.eu/index.html)
11) FDA. Structured Approach to Benefit-Risk Assessment in Drug Regulatory Decision-Making. (https://www.fda.gov/media/84831/download)
12) FDA. Benefit-Risk Assessments in Drug Regulatory. Decision-Making. (https://www.fda.gov/media/112570/download)
13) Quantitative Benefit-Risk Assessment : FDA Officials Detail Key Considerations. (https://www.raps.org/regulatoryfocus(TM)/news-articles/2017/9/quantitative-benefit-riskassessment-fda-officials-detail-key-considerations)
16) MDIC. Patient Centered Benefit-Risk (PCBR). (https://mdic.org/project/patient-centered-benefit-risk-pcbr/)
18) U. S. Preventive Services Task Force. (https://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/)
19) Owens DK et al. Ann Intern Med 2016 ; 165 : 501-8.
20) U. S. Preventive Services Task Force. Grade Definitions After July 2012. (https://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/Page/Name/grade-definitions#table-of-contents)
21) 鎌江伊三夫. 医薬経済学的手法による医療技術評価を考える <2> -EBM, VBM, HTA : 概念を整理する-医薬品医療機器レギュラトリーサイエンスPMDRS 2012 ; 43 (4) : 319-24.
22) Committee on Comparative Effectiveness Research Prioritization Board on Health Care Services Institute of Medicine. Initial National Priorities for Comparative Effectiveness Research. The National Academies Press ; 2009.
23) Institute of Medicine. Initial National Priorities for Comparative Effectiveness Research. (https://www.nap.edu/catalog/12648/initial-national-priorities-for-comparative-effectiveness-research)
25) Benefit-Harm-Balance. Benefit Harm chart for low dose aspirin for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease and cancer. (https://www.benefit-harm-balance.com/)
27) Dolan JG et al. Med Decis Making 2013 ; 33 : 59-70.
28) Dolan JG. Patient 2010 ; 3 : 229-48.
29) 森實敏夫. 価値観を反映した益と害の評価法. あいみっく 2015 ; 36 : 86-91.
33) Keeney RL, Raiffa H. Decisions with Multiple Objectives : Preferences and Value Tradeoffs. Cambridge University Press ; 1993.
34) Rutten-van Molken M et al. BMC Health Serv Res 2018 ; 18 : 576.
35) Wen S et al. Value Health 2014 ; 17 : 619-28.
36) Edlin R et al. Cost-effectiveness modelling for health technology assessment : A practical course. Springer ; 2015.
37) 森實敏夫. Swing-weightingを用いたMulti-Criteria Decision Analysis. あいみっく 2019 ; 40 : 35-47.
38) Yu T et al. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 2016 ; 25 : 363-71.
39) Savage LJ. The foundations of statistics (2nd ed.). Dover Publications ; 1972.
40) Sox HC et al. Medical Decision Making. Wiley-Blackwell ; 2013.
41) Dahabreh IJ et al. Modeling and Simulation in the Context of Health Technology Assessment : Review of Existing Guidance, Future Research Needs, and Validity Assessment. AHRQ Methods for Effective Health Care ; 2017.
42) Lin JS et al. JAMA 2016 ; 315 : 2576-94.