Generalisability of Health Technology Assessment Reports
The following information was gathered from a review of the literature conducted in 2003 on generalisability of effectiveness, cost effectiveness, full economic evaluations; multinational clinical trials, economic evaluations, international cost comparisons and papers on methodology among others.
Healthcare has become more effective and more ambitious and in many cases significantly more expensive.
There has been an increased awareness of the fact that resources are limited and that there should be a responsibility to make sure that they are well used. In order to ensure we make the best use of the resources we need to evaluate health interventions.
Because of the abundance of health impacting interventions available it is likely to be challenging for all except the most wealthy contexts to do all of their own assessments. This is likely to be a particular challenge for developing countries. As a result it may be important to be able to have a way of transferring, adapting or reinterpreting the findings of health technology assessments done by developed countries in developing countries. There aught to be a simple way of adapting HTAs from one country to another. Or at least assessing which HTA's are transferable.
Several factors were found in guidelines of the generalisability of HTAs. The most important of these were detailed reporting of unit prices and discount rates; and reporting costs and resources separately; clear information on what was done; similarity between study and target population (in terms of definitions; costs; perspective; patient characteristics and preferences common or;) minimal sensitivity of result to reasonable change in key parameters and standard method. Therefore it may be useful to have guidelines based on these as a means of assessing the best available evidence on whether HTAs are generalisable.
Further work needs to be done to determine the special issues that may be of relevance when generalising from developed to developing countries.
Michael Drummond's book (oxford university press 2001)Economic Evaluation in Health Care: Merging Theory with Practice has a chapter on transferablity of economic evaluation results
Assessing Generalisability by Location in Trial-Based. Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: the Use of Multilevel Models. Andrea Manca Scupher and others
http://www.herc.ox.ac.uk/DEEM/Bristol/Manca.pdf
See page 61 in the GUIDELINES FOR ECONOMIC EVALUATION OF PHARMACEUTICALS: CANADA 2nd Edition November 1997 http://www.farmacoeconomia.com/articulos/canada.pdf
I find this to be a very facinating subject and am certainly interested in hearing your coments
eap
The following are references that were located when doing the review. Those marked E were excluded because they did not meet inclusion criteria, I incuded, Ed were excluded as they became available only after the review was completed. Many of the authors cite drummond who certainly has published the most on this topic.
E-1 How to do (or not to do)… Cost effectiveness guidelines: which ones to use? Walker, D. Health Policy and Planning. 16:1(2001): 113-121.
E-2 A multinational pharmacoeconomic evaluation of acute major depressive disorder (MDD): a comparison of cost-effectiveness between Vanlafaxine, SSRIs and TCAs. Doyle, J. et al, 2001
I-3 Economic Analysis alongside clinical trials: bias in the assessment of economic outcomes, Ellwein, L and Drummond, M.. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 12:4 (1996); 691-697.
E-4 Health Technology Assessment: The pharmaceutical Industry perspective. Schubert, F. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 18:2 (2002), 184-191
E-5 Elements for assessment of telemedicine applications. Ohinmaa, A, Hailey, D and Roine, R. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care. (IJTAHC), 17:2 (2001), 190-202.
E-6 Probabilistic sensitivity analysis in cost-effectiveness: An application from a study of vaccination against pneumococcal bacteremia in the elderly. Whang et al. IJTAHC, 14:1 (1998), 145-160
E-7 A short history of inahta. /Hailey,D and Menon,D. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 14:1 (1999), 236-242.
E-8 Transferability of Health Technology Assessment with particular emphasis on developing countries. Attinger, E and Panarai, R. IJTAHC, 4:1 (1988), 545-554.
I-9 Generalisability of clinical trials in otitis media with effusion. Rovers, M et al. International Journal of Paediatric Otorhinolaryngology. 60 (2001), 29-40
I-10 Issues in the cross-national assessment of health technology. Drummond, M. et al. I JTAHC, 8:4 (1992), 671-682
I-11Estimating Country-Specific Cost-Effectiveness from Multinational Clinical Trials. Wilke, R et al. Health Economics 7 (1998): 481-493
I-12 Economic Evaluation of communicable disease interventions in developing countries: a critical review of the published literature Walker, D and Fox-Rushby, J. Health Policy and Planning 16:1 (2000): 113-121.
E-13 Can resource use be extracted from randomise controlled trials to calculate cost? A review of smoking cessation interventions in general practice Rigby, K, Silagy, C. and Crockett, A. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 12:4 (1996), 714-720.
E-14 Economic Analysis of Tirilazad mesylate for aneurysmal subarachnoid haemorrhage: Economic Evaluation of a Phase III Clinical Trial in Europe and Australia. Glick, H et al. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 14:1 (1998), 145-160.
I-15 Economic Evaluation alongside multinational clinical trials: Study consideration s for GUSTO IIB, Jonsson,B. and Weinstein, M., International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 13:1 (1997), 49-58.
I-16 Results of the Economic Evaluation of the FIRST study: A multinational Prospective Economic Evaluation. Schulman, K. et al. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 12:4 (1996), 698-713.
I-17 The internationalization of health technology assessment. Menon, D. and Marshall, D. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 12:1 (1996), 45-51.
E-18 Pharmacoeconomic Studies: Pitfalls and Problems. De Graeve, D and Nonneman, W. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 12:1 (1996), 22-30.
I-19 Cost-utility analysis of open versus laparoscopic groin hernia repair: results from a multicentre randomised clinical trial. Medical Research Council Laparoscopic Groin Hernia Trial Group. British Journal of Surgery. 88, (2001) 663-661
I-20 A multinational pharmacoeconomic analysis of oral therapies for onychomcosis. Arikian, S. et al. British Journal of Dermatology 130 (Suppl. 43) (1994): 35-44.
E-21Comparison of analytic approaches for the economic evaluation of new technologies alongside multicentre clinical trials. Taira, D. et al. American Heart Journal 145 (2002): 452-8. United States of America.
I-22International economic analysis of primary prevention of cardiovascular disease with pravastatin in WOSCOPS. Caro, J et al. European Heart Journal (1999) 20, 263-268.
I-23 The cost of HIV prevention strategies in developing countries. Sonderland, N. et al. Bulletin of the World Health Organisation, 71:5 (1993): 595-604.
E-24 Pharmacoeconomic and Health Policy: Current applications and prospects for the future Greenberg, P et al. Pharmacoeconomics 16: 5 pt 1 (1999): 425-432.
I-25 Pharmaceutical Care Programmes for the Elderly: Economic Issues. Crealey, G. et al. Pharmacoeconomics. 21:7 (2003): 455-465
I-26 Uncertainty in the economic evaluation of health care technologies: the role of sensitivity analysis. Briggs, A. et al. Health Economics 3: (1994) 95-104.
E-27 Evaluacion de la tecnologia empleada en la atencion de la salud. Infante, A. Pan American Journal of Public Health 2:5 (1997) 363-372.
E-28 Application of Strengths, weakness, opportunities and threats analysis in the development of a health technology assessment programme. Gibis, B. et al. Health Policy 58 (2001): 27-35.
I-29 Analysing differences in the cost of treatment across centres within economic evaluations. Coyle, D and Drummond, M. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 17:2 (2001), 155-163.
I-30 Analysis of the eligibility of published economic evaluations for transfer to a given health care system: Methodological approach and application to the French health care system. Spath, H. et al. Health Policy 49 (1999): 161-177
I-31 Design and analytic considerations in determining the cost effectiveness of early intervention in asthma from multinational clinical trial. Sullivan, S. et al. Controlled Clinical Trials 22 (2001): 420-437
I-32 International collaboration in health technology assessment: a study of technologies used in management of osteoporosis. Hailey, D. and Menon, D. Health Policy 43 (1998) 233-241.
I-33 Intensive care use in developing countries a comparison between a Tunisian and a French unit. Nouria. Intensive Care Medicine 24 (1998): 1444-1551
I-34 Indirect costs of disease: an international comparison. Van Rojien, L. et al. Health Policy 33 (1995): 15-29,
I-35 An international comparison of costs and outcomes of psychiatric care: Research and policy implications. Dickey, B. and Scott, J. Journal of Mental Health (1997) 6(3): 251-263.
I-36 Rispiridone Olanzapine Drug Outcomes studies in Schizophrenia (RODOS): health economics results of an international naturalistic study. Kasper, S et al. International Clinical Psychopharmacology 16 (2001): 189-196.
I-37 Analysis of costs and cost effectiveness in multinational trials. Koopmanschap, M. Touw, K. and Rutten , F. Health Policy 58 (2001): 175-186.
E-38 Economic Evaluations of Hepatitis B Immunisation: a global review of recent studies. Beutels, P. Health Economics 10 (2001): 751-774
E-39 Potential solutions to the problems of conducting systematic reviews of new health technologies. Moher, D. and Schachter, H. Journal of the Canadian Medical Association 166:13 (2002): 1674-1675
E-40 Economic Evaluation alongside N-of-1 trials: getting closer to the margin. Karnon, J. and Qizilbash, N. Health Economics 10: 79-82 (2001).
E-41Centre Specific or average unit costs in multicentre studies? Journal Some theory and simulation. Raikou, M et al. Health Economics 10 (2001): 79-82
E-42 A comparison of economic modelling and clinical trails in the economic evaluation of cholesterol modifying pharmacotherapy. Morris, S. Health Economics 6 (1997): 589-601
E-43 Cost and cost effectiveness of HIV/AIDS prevention strategies in developing countries: is there an evidence base? Walker, D. Health Policy and Planning. 18:1 (2003): 4-17.
I-44 Economics and the evaluation of health care programmes: generalisability of methods and implications for generalisability of results. Birch, S. and Gafni, A. Health Policy 64 (2003) 207-219.
I-45 Development of the WHO guidelines on generalised cost-effectiveness analysis. Murray, C. et al. Health Economics 9 (2000): 235-251
I-46 Critical Issues in the economic evaluation of interventions against communicable diseases. Hutubussy, R., Bendib, L and Evans, D. Acta Tropica 78 (2001) 191-206.
I-47 Pharmacy Benefit management: Enhancing the applicability of pharmacoeconomic for optimal decision-making. Mullins, D. and Wang, J. Pharmacoeconomics. 20:1(2002): 9-21
I-48 The Generalisability of Pharmacoeconomic Studies, Mason, J., Pharmacoeconomics, 11:6 (1997): 503-514
E-49 A New Decision Model for Cost-Utility Comparisons of Chemotherapy in Recurrent Metastatic Breast Cancer, Hutton, J. et al, Pharmacoeconomics, 9, Suppl. 2 (1996): 8-20
E-50 Effective Utilisation of Pharmacoeconomics for Decision-makers. Bentkover, J. and Corey, R., Pharmacoeconomics, 10: 2 (2002): 75-80,
I-51Towards a better understanding of multinational economic evaluations, Anonymous, Drugs and Therapy Perspectives, 18:10 (2002): 20-24
I-52 A Comparative economic analysis of pegylated liposomal doxorubicin versus topotecan in ovarian cancer in the USA and the UK, Smith, D. H. et al., Annals of Oncology 13 (2002): 1590- 1507,
I-53 An international survey of the health economics of IVF and ICSI. Collins, J. A. Human Reproduction Update 8:3 (2002): 265-277
I-54 Directly observed treatment for multi-drug resistant tuberculosis: an economic evaluation in the United States of America and South Africa, Wilton, P. et al., International Journal of Tuberculosis and Lung Disease 5:12 (2001): 1137-1142
I-55 Methods for economic evaluation alongside a multicentre trial in developing countries: a case study from the WHO Antenatal Care Randomised Controlled Trial, Mugford, M. et al., Paediatric and Perinatal Epidemiology, 12, Suppl. 2 (1998): 75-97
E –56 Cochrane Reviews and Systematic Reviews of Economic Evaluations: Amantadine and Rimantadine in the Prevention and Treatment of Influenza, Jefferson, T., Pharmacoeconomics 12, Suppl. 1 (1999): 85-89
I-57 Technology Assessment in Developing Countries. Tan-Toress, T., World Health Forum. 6 (1995): 74-76
I-58 Economic Evaluation of meloxicam (7.5 mg) versus sustained release diclofenac (100mg) treatment for osteoarthritis: a cross-national assessment for France, Italy and the UK. Jansen, R. et al. British Journal of Medical Economics 11 (1997): 9-22.
Ed-59 A tale of two (or more) cities: geographic transferability of pharmacoeconomic data. O’Brein, B. American Journal of Managed Care. 3 Suppl. (1997) S33-S39
Ed-60 Economic evaluation of health programmes: application of the process to developing countries. Mills, A. World Health Statistics Quarterly 38: 4 (1985) 368-382
Ed-61 Survey and examples of economic evaluation of health programmes in developing countries. Mills, A. World Health Statistics Quarterly 38:4 (1985) 402-431
Ed-62 Economic Evaluation of programmes or interventions in the management of rheumatoid arthritis: Defining a consensus based reference case. Maetxel, A. Journal of Rheumatology. 30:4(2001) 890-896
Ed-63 Treatment and Comparison Groups in an Evaluation of Vocational Rehabilitation: Comparability, Costs and Other Issues [A Cost Effectiveness Evaluation of the Federal-State Vocational Rehabilitation Program-Using a Comparison Group]. Englander, V. American Economist. 28:2 (1984) 71-73.
Ed-64 Small area variation in the use of common surgical procedures. An international comparison of New England, England and Norway. NEJM 1982, 307, 1310
Ed-65. Resource costing for multinational neurologic clinical trials: methods and results. Schulman K, Health Economics 7(1998): 629-638.
Ep-66 Mammography screening as a method for the early detection of breast cancer, Gibis et al, German Institute for Medical Documentation and Information 1998
Ed-67 Trials and Tribulations. Emerging issues in the design of economic evaluations alongside clinical trials. Coyle D et al. IJTAHC 1998:14, 135-144
Ed-68 Comparing cost effectiveness across countries: the model of acid-related disease. Drummond, M. Pharmacoeconomics 1992: 5,60-67
Ed-69 Pharmacoeconomic component of a clinical trial conducted in Latin America. Reinharz, D et al. IJTAHC 17:4 (2001), 571-578
Ed- 70 Generalising from trials. Analysing centre selection bias in a breast screening trial. Johnston K, Gerard K and Brown J IJTAHC 14(3) 1998, 484-504
Ed- 71 MEDTAP Database of International Unit Costs. Medtap international available at http://www.medtap.com/Products/unitcost.cfm
Ep-72 The portability of economic evaluations page 51 in CCOHTA Guidelines for the conduct of economic assessments of health care, Canadian Co-ordinating Office for Health Technology Assessment. 1997.
Ep-73 Consultancy on Health Technology Assessment for Ministry of Health Trinidad and Tobago. Banken, R., November 2001
Ep-74 Low back pain: Frequency, Management, and Prevention from a HTA perspective. Danish institute for health technology assessment. DIHTA 1999: 1:1
Ed-75 Economic evaluation in the critical care literature: Do they help us improve the efficiency of our unit? Heyland et al. Critical Care Medicine. 24 (1996): 1591-8
Ed- 76 An exercise in the feasibility of secondary economic analysis. Jefferson T et al. Health Economics. 5 (1996): 155-65
Ed-77 Economic Analysis of clinical trials in cancer: are they helpful to policy makers? Bennet, CL, et al. Stem Cells 12 (1994): 424-9
Ed-78 European School of Oncology Advisory Report to the Commission of the European Communities for Europe against Cancer Programme: Cost Effectiveness in Cancer Care. Williams et al. European Journal of Cancer. 31A (1995): 1410-24
Ed-79 Some factors to consider when using the results of economic evaluation studies at the population level. Leidl, R. IJTAHC 10 (1994): 467-478
Ed-80 Making cost assessments based on RCTs more useful to decision-makers. Balutussen et al. Health Policy 37(1996): 163-183
Ed-81 Cost-effectiveness of clinical diagnosis: venography and non-invasive testing of patients with symptomatic deep- vein thrombosis. Hull et al. NEJM. 304 (1981): 1561-67
Ed-84 Design, analysis and presentation of multinational economic studies: the need for guidance. Pang, F. Pharmacoeconomics. 20:2 (2002) 75-90
Ed-85 Analysis alongside clinical trials: Reviewing the methodological issues. Drummond, M and Davies, S. IJTAHC. 7 (1991): 561-73
Healthcare has become more effective and more ambitious and in many cases significantly more expensive.
There has been an increased awareness of the fact that resources are limited and that there should be a responsibility to make sure that they are well used. In order to ensure we make the best use of the resources we need to evaluate health interventions.
Because of the abundance of health impacting interventions available it is likely to be challenging for all except the most wealthy contexts to do all of their own assessments. This is likely to be a particular challenge for developing countries. As a result it may be important to be able to have a way of transferring, adapting or reinterpreting the findings of health technology assessments done by developed countries in developing countries. There aught to be a simple way of adapting HTAs from one country to another. Or at least assessing which HTA's are transferable.
Several factors were found in guidelines of the generalisability of HTAs. The most important of these were detailed reporting of unit prices and discount rates; and reporting costs and resources separately; clear information on what was done; similarity between study and target population (in terms of definitions; costs; perspective; patient characteristics and preferences common or;) minimal sensitivity of result to reasonable change in key parameters and standard method. Therefore it may be useful to have guidelines based on these as a means of assessing the best available evidence on whether HTAs are generalisable.
Further work needs to be done to determine the special issues that may be of relevance when generalising from developed to developing countries.
Michael Drummond's book (oxford university press 2001)Economic Evaluation in Health Care: Merging Theory with Practice has a chapter on transferablity of economic evaluation results
Assessing Generalisability by Location in Trial-Based. Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: the Use of Multilevel Models. Andrea Manca Scupher and others
http://www.herc.ox.ac.uk/DEEM/Bristol/Manca.pdf
See page 61 in the GUIDELINES FOR ECONOMIC EVALUATION OF PHARMACEUTICALS: CANADA 2nd Edition November 1997 http://www.farmacoeconomia.com/articulos/canada.pdf
I find this to be a very facinating subject and am certainly interested in hearing your coments
eap
The following are references that were located when doing the review. Those marked E were excluded because they did not meet inclusion criteria, I incuded, Ed were excluded as they became available only after the review was completed. Many of the authors cite drummond who certainly has published the most on this topic.
E-1 How to do (or not to do)… Cost effectiveness guidelines: which ones to use? Walker, D. Health Policy and Planning. 16:1(2001): 113-121.
E-2 A multinational pharmacoeconomic evaluation of acute major depressive disorder (MDD): a comparison of cost-effectiveness between Vanlafaxine, SSRIs and TCAs. Doyle, J. et al, 2001
I-3 Economic Analysis alongside clinical trials: bias in the assessment of economic outcomes, Ellwein, L and Drummond, M.. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 12:4 (1996); 691-697.
E-4 Health Technology Assessment: The pharmaceutical Industry perspective. Schubert, F. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 18:2 (2002), 184-191
E-5 Elements for assessment of telemedicine applications. Ohinmaa, A, Hailey, D and Roine, R. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care. (IJTAHC), 17:2 (2001), 190-202.
E-6 Probabilistic sensitivity analysis in cost-effectiveness: An application from a study of vaccination against pneumococcal bacteremia in the elderly. Whang et al. IJTAHC, 14:1 (1998), 145-160
E-7 A short history of inahta. /Hailey,D and Menon,D. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 14:1 (1999), 236-242.
E-8 Transferability of Health Technology Assessment with particular emphasis on developing countries. Attinger, E and Panarai, R. IJTAHC, 4:1 (1988), 545-554.
I-9 Generalisability of clinical trials in otitis media with effusion. Rovers, M et al. International Journal of Paediatric Otorhinolaryngology. 60 (2001), 29-40
I-10 Issues in the cross-national assessment of health technology. Drummond, M. et al. I JTAHC, 8:4 (1992), 671-682
I-11Estimating Country-Specific Cost-Effectiveness from Multinational Clinical Trials. Wilke, R et al. Health Economics 7 (1998): 481-493
I-12 Economic Evaluation of communicable disease interventions in developing countries: a critical review of the published literature Walker, D and Fox-Rushby, J. Health Policy and Planning 16:1 (2000): 113-121.
E-13 Can resource use be extracted from randomise controlled trials to calculate cost? A review of smoking cessation interventions in general practice Rigby, K, Silagy, C. and Crockett, A. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 12:4 (1996), 714-720.
E-14 Economic Analysis of Tirilazad mesylate for aneurysmal subarachnoid haemorrhage: Economic Evaluation of a Phase III Clinical Trial in Europe and Australia. Glick, H et al. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 14:1 (1998), 145-160.
I-15 Economic Evaluation alongside multinational clinical trials: Study consideration s for GUSTO IIB, Jonsson,B. and Weinstein, M., International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 13:1 (1997), 49-58.
I-16 Results of the Economic Evaluation of the FIRST study: A multinational Prospective Economic Evaluation. Schulman, K. et al. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 12:4 (1996), 698-713.
I-17 The internationalization of health technology assessment. Menon, D. and Marshall, D. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 12:1 (1996), 45-51.
E-18 Pharmacoeconomic Studies: Pitfalls and Problems. De Graeve, D and Nonneman, W. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 12:1 (1996), 22-30.
I-19 Cost-utility analysis of open versus laparoscopic groin hernia repair: results from a multicentre randomised clinical trial. Medical Research Council Laparoscopic Groin Hernia Trial Group. British Journal of Surgery. 88, (2001) 663-661
I-20 A multinational pharmacoeconomic analysis of oral therapies for onychomcosis. Arikian, S. et al. British Journal of Dermatology 130 (Suppl. 43) (1994): 35-44.
E-21Comparison of analytic approaches for the economic evaluation of new technologies alongside multicentre clinical trials. Taira, D. et al. American Heart Journal 145 (2002): 452-8. United States of America.
I-22International economic analysis of primary prevention of cardiovascular disease with pravastatin in WOSCOPS. Caro, J et al. European Heart Journal (1999) 20, 263-268.
I-23 The cost of HIV prevention strategies in developing countries. Sonderland, N. et al. Bulletin of the World Health Organisation, 71:5 (1993): 595-604.
E-24 Pharmacoeconomic and Health Policy: Current applications and prospects for the future Greenberg, P et al. Pharmacoeconomics 16: 5 pt 1 (1999): 425-432.
I-25 Pharmaceutical Care Programmes for the Elderly: Economic Issues. Crealey, G. et al. Pharmacoeconomics. 21:7 (2003): 455-465
I-26 Uncertainty in the economic evaluation of health care technologies: the role of sensitivity analysis. Briggs, A. et al. Health Economics 3: (1994) 95-104.
E-27 Evaluacion de la tecnologia empleada en la atencion de la salud. Infante, A. Pan American Journal of Public Health 2:5 (1997) 363-372.
E-28 Application of Strengths, weakness, opportunities and threats analysis in the development of a health technology assessment programme. Gibis, B. et al. Health Policy 58 (2001): 27-35.
I-29 Analysing differences in the cost of treatment across centres within economic evaluations. Coyle, D and Drummond, M. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 17:2 (2001), 155-163.
I-30 Analysis of the eligibility of published economic evaluations for transfer to a given health care system: Methodological approach and application to the French health care system. Spath, H. et al. Health Policy 49 (1999): 161-177
I-31 Design and analytic considerations in determining the cost effectiveness of early intervention in asthma from multinational clinical trial. Sullivan, S. et al. Controlled Clinical Trials 22 (2001): 420-437
I-32 International collaboration in health technology assessment: a study of technologies used in management of osteoporosis. Hailey, D. and Menon, D. Health Policy 43 (1998) 233-241.
I-33 Intensive care use in developing countries a comparison between a Tunisian and a French unit. Nouria. Intensive Care Medicine 24 (1998): 1444-1551
I-34 Indirect costs of disease: an international comparison. Van Rojien, L. et al. Health Policy 33 (1995): 15-29,
I-35 An international comparison of costs and outcomes of psychiatric care: Research and policy implications. Dickey, B. and Scott, J. Journal of Mental Health (1997) 6(3): 251-263.
I-36 Rispiridone Olanzapine Drug Outcomes studies in Schizophrenia (RODOS): health economics results of an international naturalistic study. Kasper, S et al. International Clinical Psychopharmacology 16 (2001): 189-196.
I-37 Analysis of costs and cost effectiveness in multinational trials. Koopmanschap, M. Touw, K. and Rutten , F. Health Policy 58 (2001): 175-186.
E-38 Economic Evaluations of Hepatitis B Immunisation: a global review of recent studies. Beutels, P. Health Economics 10 (2001): 751-774
E-39 Potential solutions to the problems of conducting systematic reviews of new health technologies. Moher, D. and Schachter, H. Journal of the Canadian Medical Association 166:13 (2002): 1674-1675
E-40 Economic Evaluation alongside N-of-1 trials: getting closer to the margin. Karnon, J. and Qizilbash, N. Health Economics 10: 79-82 (2001).
E-41Centre Specific or average unit costs in multicentre studies? Journal Some theory and simulation. Raikou, M et al. Health Economics 10 (2001): 79-82
E-42 A comparison of economic modelling and clinical trails in the economic evaluation of cholesterol modifying pharmacotherapy. Morris, S. Health Economics 6 (1997): 589-601
E-43 Cost and cost effectiveness of HIV/AIDS prevention strategies in developing countries: is there an evidence base? Walker, D. Health Policy and Planning. 18:1 (2003): 4-17.
I-44 Economics and the evaluation of health care programmes: generalisability of methods and implications for generalisability of results. Birch, S. and Gafni, A. Health Policy 64 (2003) 207-219.
I-45 Development of the WHO guidelines on generalised cost-effectiveness analysis. Murray, C. et al. Health Economics 9 (2000): 235-251
I-46 Critical Issues in the economic evaluation of interventions against communicable diseases. Hutubussy, R., Bendib, L and Evans, D. Acta Tropica 78 (2001) 191-206.
I-47 Pharmacy Benefit management: Enhancing the applicability of pharmacoeconomic for optimal decision-making. Mullins, D. and Wang, J. Pharmacoeconomics. 20:1(2002): 9-21
I-48 The Generalisability of Pharmacoeconomic Studies, Mason, J., Pharmacoeconomics, 11:6 (1997): 503-514
E-49 A New Decision Model for Cost-Utility Comparisons of Chemotherapy in Recurrent Metastatic Breast Cancer, Hutton, J. et al, Pharmacoeconomics, 9, Suppl. 2 (1996): 8-20
E-50 Effective Utilisation of Pharmacoeconomics for Decision-makers. Bentkover, J. and Corey, R., Pharmacoeconomics, 10: 2 (2002): 75-80,
I-51Towards a better understanding of multinational economic evaluations, Anonymous, Drugs and Therapy Perspectives, 18:10 (2002): 20-24
I-52 A Comparative economic analysis of pegylated liposomal doxorubicin versus topotecan in ovarian cancer in the USA and the UK, Smith, D. H. et al., Annals of Oncology 13 (2002): 1590- 1507,
I-53 An international survey of the health economics of IVF and ICSI. Collins, J. A. Human Reproduction Update 8:3 (2002): 265-277
I-54 Directly observed treatment for multi-drug resistant tuberculosis: an economic evaluation in the United States of America and South Africa, Wilton, P. et al., International Journal of Tuberculosis and Lung Disease 5:12 (2001): 1137-1142
I-55 Methods for economic evaluation alongside a multicentre trial in developing countries: a case study from the WHO Antenatal Care Randomised Controlled Trial, Mugford, M. et al., Paediatric and Perinatal Epidemiology, 12, Suppl. 2 (1998): 75-97
E –56 Cochrane Reviews and Systematic Reviews of Economic Evaluations: Amantadine and Rimantadine in the Prevention and Treatment of Influenza, Jefferson, T., Pharmacoeconomics 12, Suppl. 1 (1999): 85-89
I-57 Technology Assessment in Developing Countries. Tan-Toress, T., World Health Forum. 6 (1995): 74-76
I-58 Economic Evaluation of meloxicam (7.5 mg) versus sustained release diclofenac (100mg) treatment for osteoarthritis: a cross-national assessment for France, Italy and the UK. Jansen, R. et al. British Journal of Medical Economics 11 (1997): 9-22.
Ed-59 A tale of two (or more) cities: geographic transferability of pharmacoeconomic data. O’Brein, B. American Journal of Managed Care. 3 Suppl. (1997) S33-S39
Ed-60 Economic evaluation of health programmes: application of the process to developing countries. Mills, A. World Health Statistics Quarterly 38: 4 (1985) 368-382
Ed-61 Survey and examples of economic evaluation of health programmes in developing countries. Mills, A. World Health Statistics Quarterly 38:4 (1985) 402-431
Ed-62 Economic Evaluation of programmes or interventions in the management of rheumatoid arthritis: Defining a consensus based reference case. Maetxel, A. Journal of Rheumatology. 30:4(2001) 890-896
Ed-63 Treatment and Comparison Groups in an Evaluation of Vocational Rehabilitation: Comparability, Costs and Other Issues [A Cost Effectiveness Evaluation of the Federal-State Vocational Rehabilitation Program-Using a Comparison Group]. Englander, V. American Economist. 28:2 (1984) 71-73.
Ed-64 Small area variation in the use of common surgical procedures. An international comparison of New England, England and Norway. NEJM 1982, 307, 1310
Ed-65. Resource costing for multinational neurologic clinical trials: methods and results. Schulman K, Health Economics 7(1998): 629-638.
Ep-66 Mammography screening as a method for the early detection of breast cancer, Gibis et al, German Institute for Medical Documentation and Information 1998
Ed-67 Trials and Tribulations. Emerging issues in the design of economic evaluations alongside clinical trials. Coyle D et al. IJTAHC 1998:14, 135-144
Ed-68 Comparing cost effectiveness across countries: the model of acid-related disease. Drummond, M. Pharmacoeconomics 1992: 5,60-67
Ed-69 Pharmacoeconomic component of a clinical trial conducted in Latin America. Reinharz, D et al. IJTAHC 17:4 (2001), 571-578
Ed- 70 Generalising from trials. Analysing centre selection bias in a breast screening trial. Johnston K, Gerard K and Brown J IJTAHC 14(3) 1998, 484-504
Ed- 71 MEDTAP Database of International Unit Costs. Medtap international available at http://www.medtap.com/Products/unitcost.cfm
Ep-72 The portability of economic evaluations page 51 in CCOHTA Guidelines for the conduct of economic assessments of health care, Canadian Co-ordinating Office for Health Technology Assessment. 1997.
Ep-73 Consultancy on Health Technology Assessment for Ministry of Health Trinidad and Tobago. Banken, R., November 2001
Ep-74 Low back pain: Frequency, Management, and Prevention from a HTA perspective. Danish institute for health technology assessment. DIHTA 1999: 1:1
Ed-75 Economic evaluation in the critical care literature: Do they help us improve the efficiency of our unit? Heyland et al. Critical Care Medicine. 24 (1996): 1591-8
Ed- 76 An exercise in the feasibility of secondary economic analysis. Jefferson T et al. Health Economics. 5 (1996): 155-65
Ed-77 Economic Analysis of clinical trials in cancer: are they helpful to policy makers? Bennet, CL, et al. Stem Cells 12 (1994): 424-9
Ed-78 European School of Oncology Advisory Report to the Commission of the European Communities for Europe against Cancer Programme: Cost Effectiveness in Cancer Care. Williams et al. European Journal of Cancer. 31A (1995): 1410-24
Ed-79 Some factors to consider when using the results of economic evaluation studies at the population level. Leidl, R. IJTAHC 10 (1994): 467-478
Ed-80 Making cost assessments based on RCTs more useful to decision-makers. Balutussen et al. Health Policy 37(1996): 163-183
Ed-81 Cost-effectiveness of clinical diagnosis: venography and non-invasive testing of patients with symptomatic deep- vein thrombosis. Hull et al. NEJM. 304 (1981): 1561-67
Ed-84 Design, analysis and presentation of multinational economic studies: the need for guidance. Pang, F. Pharmacoeconomics. 20:2 (2002) 75-90
Ed-85 Analysis alongside clinical trials: Reviewing the methodological issues. Drummond, M and Davies, S. IJTAHC. 7 (1991): 561-73
posted by Arthur at 5:40 AM
2 Comments:
Hi, guantanamera121212
не факт
Post a Comment
<< Home