HTAs are quite varied in content and I haven't found one checklist that would cover all HTA possibilities.  Some suggestions for components that are often part of an HTA include the PRISMA statement at www.prisma-statement.org for network meta-analysis or systematic reviews (reference is: Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, The PRISMA Group (2009). Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement. PLoS Med 6(6): e1000097. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed1000097) Subgroup analyses of randomized controlled trials also often make up an HTA, and for this I'd recommend Paget's paper: Paget, M.-A., C. Chuang-Stein, et al. Subgroup analyses of clinical effectiveness to support health technology assessments. Pharmaceutical Statistics 2011 10(6): 532-538.  I hope that's a good start.

Recently issued an updated version of PRISMA: BMJ 2014;349:g7647 doi: 10.1136/bmj.g7647 (Published 2 January 2015)

Thanks Melanie and Federico.  Will follow those up. 

Interesting question, Sandra. The HTA reports that I'm aware of are structured as systematic reviews (SR) of interventions/techniques/technologies. To me, this means that to appraise the quality of a HTA report, a checklist evaluating SRs would be appropriate, and two common ones for this is AMSTAR and CASP. PRISMA mentioned above is a checklist for the REPORTING of SRs and meta-analyses, and the new paper referred to above is actually a version of PRISMA called PRISMA-P for the reporting of a systematic review PROTOCOL. In my experience AMSTAR is a nice, easy-to-use tool evaluating 11 aspects of quality in an SR. The tool is easily available online.

Health Technology Assessment (HTA) is defined as a specific form of policy analysis1 engaging multi-disciplinary groups to 'bridge between science and policy' and 'balancing between the ideals of scientific rigour and the realities of policy making'2. As  mentioned already, the content of HTAs reports can vary considerably and an all-encompassing checklist for their appraisal may not be appropriate.

Rather in the first instance,  checklists exist to appraise the components considered to inform a healthcare decision problem (i.e. policy)3 and equally (as work is designed to inform policy), checklists also exist to appraise the impact of the work on policy4.

The  individuals components of research required to inform an HTA are always dependent on each specific case under consideration (e.g. I have acted as an economist in studies using systematic reviews5, 6, trials7, 8 or both9). But whilst HTA have evolved as a research environment where one identifies conventional clinical research, HTA primarily function to inform policy.

The quality of the individual components is important and can be appraised using the various checklists (noting that quality assessment may be integral to HTA, particularly those using systematic reviews). For a compendium of the specific checklists, see EQUATOR network10 and on HTA processes NIHR Journals Library 'Information for authors’11.Specifically, as economist arguably performs policy analysis in HTAs, it is worth also worth firstly noting NIHR's 'Health Economics Checklist for Abstracts’12 and elsewhere comprehensive I previously reviewed the variety of checklist for appraising health economics analysis13.

References

1. "Health technology assessment", Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_technology_assessment

2. D. Rotstein and A. Laupacis, “Differences between systematic reviews and health technology assessments: a trade-off between the ideals of scientific rigor and the realities of policy making.,” Int. J. Technol. Assess. Health Care, vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 177–83, Jan. 2004.

3. "A checklist for health technology assessment reports", The International Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment (INAHTA) , http://www.inahta.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/INAHTA_HTA_Checklist_English.pdf

4. Framework for reporting on impact of HTA reports, http://www.inahta.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/INAHTA_Impact_framework_form-instructions.pdf

5. R. Richardson, D. Trepel, A. Perry, S. Ali, S. Duffy, R. Gabe, S. Gilbody, J. Glanville, C. Hewitt, L. Manea, S. Palmer, B. Wright, and D. McMillan, “Screening for psychological and mental health difficulties in young people who offend: a systematic review and decision model,” Heal. Technol Assess, vol. 19, no. 1, 2015.

[6] "Early parenting interventions for families with young children showing severe attachment problems: an integrated evidence synthesis”, University of York http://www.york.ac.uk/healthsciences/research/mental-health/projects/archive/attachment/

7. Overend, K., Lewis, H., Bailey, D., Bosanquet, K., Chew-Graham, C., Ekers, D., Trépel, D., Gilbody, S. (2014). CASPER plus (CollAborative care in screen-positive EldeRs with major depressive disorder): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial. Trials, 15(1), 451. doi:10.1186/1745-6215-15-451

8. B. Wright, L. Tindall, E. Littlewood, J. Adamson, V. Allgar, S. Bennett, S. Gilbody, C. Verduyn, B. Alderson-Day, L. Dyson, D. Trépel, and S. Ali, “Computerised cognitive behaviour therapy for depression in adolescents: study protocol for a feasibility randomised controlled trial.,” BMJ Open, vol. 4, no. 10, p. e006488, Jan. 2014.

9. B. Wright, D. Marshall, D. Collingridge Moore, H. Ainsworth, L. Hackney, J. Adamson, S. Ali, V. Allgar, L. Cook, L. Dyson, E. Littlewood, R. Hargate, A. McLaren, D. McMillan, D. Trépel, J. Whitehead, and C. Williams, “Autism Spectrum Social Stories In Schools Trial (ASSSIST): study protocol for a feasibility randomised controlled trial analysing clinical and cost-effectiveness of Social Stories in mainstream schools.,” BMJ Open, vol. 4, no. 7, p. e005952, Jan. 2014.

10. Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research, http://www.equator-network.org

11. Information for authors, NIHR Journals Library, http://www.journalslibrary.nihr.ac.uk/information-for-authors

12. Health Economics Checklist for Abstracts, NIHR Journals Library, http://www.journalslibrary.nihr.ac.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0014/64022/v2_Health_Economics_Checklist-HTA-only.pdf

13. "Q&A", Researchgate, https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_anyone_familiar_with_the_Checklist_for_Health_Economic_Studies

The newest ISPOR recommended checklist is the CHEERS checklist which can be found on their website.

Inahta checklist is one of the most famous tools for HTA appraisal. You can find it the link below:

 http://www.inahta.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/INAHTA_HTA_Checklist_English.pdf