Literature DB >> 10147018

Meta-analysis and quality of evidence in the economic evaluation of drug trials.

R J Simes1, P P Glasziou.   

Abstract

Meta-analysis is an important part of assessing cost-effectiveness in that it may help determine which treatments are indeed effective and estimate the level of effectiveness of each. Meta-analysis uses the data from all the relevant trials and is a powerful tool for detecting effects too small to be picked up by individual trials. The assessment of quality of studies in a meta-analysis is critical, with priority needing to be given to high quality randomised studies. A written protocol, literature retrieval system, evaluation and selection criteria, choice of endpoints and ways to evaluate bias must all be pre-defined. Nevertheless, problems can arise when meta-analysis is used for cost-effectiveness analysis, due to variation in study medication protocols, duration of follow-up, and difficulties in interpreting patient subgroups and compliance. Despite being subject to the design flaws of both the trials analysed and the methods used in the analysis itself, meta-analysis provides a more objective and thorough means of evaluating effectiveness and hence the cost-effectiveness of treatments. Based on the meta-analysis evidence, we recommend that the current QALY league tables be split into an implementation table for clearly effective therapies, and a research priority table where the evidence of treatment effectiveness is less clear and more research is needed.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1992        PMID: 10147018     DOI: 10.2165/00019053-199201040-00005

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics        ISSN: 1170-7690            Impact factor:   4.981


  22 in total

Review 1.  Quality of life instruments in the evaluation of new drugs.

Authors:  R Jaeschke; G H Guyatt; D Cook
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  1992-02       Impact factor: 4.981

2.  Considerations for the meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials. Summary of a panel discussion.

Authors:  J P Boissel; J Blanchard; E Panak; J C Peyrieux; H Sacks
Journal:  Control Clin Trials       Date:  1989-09

3.  Application of statistical decision theory to treatment choices: implications for the design and analysis of clinical trials.

Authors:  R J Simes
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  1986 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 2.373

4.  Estimators of the Mantel-Haenszel variance consistent in both sparse data and large-strata limiting models.

Authors:  J Robins; N Breslow; S Greenland
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  1986-06       Impact factor: 2.571

5.  Bias in analytic research.

Authors:  D L Sackett
Journal:  J Chronic Dis       Date:  1979

6.  How to read clinical journals: V: To distinguish useful from useless or even harmful therapy.

Authors: 
Journal:  Can Med Assoc J       Date:  1981-05-01       Impact factor: 8.262

Review 7.  Quality adjusted survival analysis.

Authors:  P P Glasziou; R J Simes; R D Gelber
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  1990-11       Impact factor: 2.373

Review 8.  Systemic treatment of early breast cancer by hormonal, cytotoxic, or immune therapy. 133 randomised trials involving 31,000 recurrences and 24,000 deaths among 75,000 women. Early Breast Cancer Trialists' Collaborative Group.

Authors: 
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1992-01-04       Impact factor: 79.321

9.  Confronting publication bias: a cohort design for meta-analysis.

Authors:  R J Simes
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  1987 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 2.373

10.  Blood pressure, stroke, and coronary heart disease. Part 1, Prolonged differences in blood pressure: prospective observational studies corrected for the regression dilution bias.

Authors:  S MacMahon; R Peto; J Cutler; R Collins; P Sorlie; J Neaton; R Abbott; J Godwin; A Dyer; J Stamler
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1990-03-31       Impact factor: 79.321

View more
  7 in total

1.  Efficacy of 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl coenzyme A reductase inhibitors for prevention of stroke.

Authors:  S Warshafsky; D Packard; S J Marks; N Sachdeva; D M Terashita; G Kaufman; K Sang; A J Deluca; S J Peterson; W H Frishman
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  1999-12       Impact factor: 5.128

2.  Cost-effectiveness league tables: valuable guidance for decision makers?

Authors:  Josephine Mauskopf; Frans Rutten; Warren Schonfeld
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2003       Impact factor: 4.981

3.  A review of cost-effectiveness analyses of hypertension treatment.

Authors:  M Johannesson; B Jönsson
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  1992-04       Impact factor: 4.981

4.  Criteria for authorship. Acceptance of a paper should not depend on where the researchers work.

Authors:  J A Sarcristan; J M Hernandez
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1995-04-01

5.  Cost efficacy of tazobactam/piperacillin versus imipenem/cilastatin in the treatment of intra-abdominal infection.

Authors:  E S Dietrich; B Schubert; W Ebner; F Daschner
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2001-01       Impact factor: 4.981

6.  The cost effectiveness of amoxicillin/clavulanic acid as antibacterial prophylaxis in abdominal and gynaecological surgery.

Authors:  P G Davey; S E Parker; I K Crombie; M Jaderberg
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  1995-04       Impact factor: 4.981

Review 7.  Cost-effective intervention in stroke.

Authors:  D Dunbabin
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  1992-12       Impact factor: 4.981

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.