Literature DB >> 10174317

Applied pharmacoeconomics. When can publication be legitimately withheld?

G C Yee1, A L Hillman.   

Abstract

Pharmacoeconomic studies can help decision-makers choose the most efficient drug treatments in our internationally cost-constrained healthcare environment. However, perceptions of bias about the nature of many economic evaluations limit the usefulness of pharmacoeconomic data to decision-makers. In an effort to increase the credibility of pharmacoeconomic studies, several groups have developed methodological guidelines, and one has developed ethical guidelines for these evaluations. In this article, we evaluate issues related to the publication of the results of pharmacoeconomic studies. Pharmacoeconomics is a true science (and should be so treated), rather than a form of marketing. Pharmacoeconomic studies must undergo the same peer review process and be published in serious research journals, as are other types of scientific investigations. Investigators should attempt to publish the results of pharmacoeconomic studies, even (and, perhaps, especially) when the results are not favourable to the sponsor. However, there are acceptable reasons to withhold publication of 'negative' results. For example, when methodological problems plague a study, or when the study addresses an investigational drug not likely to be approved, then researchers are justified in giving up on publication, if they so choose. Similarly, feasibility studies to test methods of data collection or analyses conducted very early in the drug development process need not always be published. Nonetheless, access to all important investigations--regardless of whether the results are positive or negative--will become more important as healthcare becomes more evidence-based, as decisions have impact on large populations of people, and as those in charge of formularies actually begin to use cost-effectiveness analysis to help make choices among competing drugs.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1997        PMID: 10174317     DOI: 10.2165/00019053-199712050-00001

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


  12 in total

1.  Economic evaluation of pharmaceuticals: science or marketing?

Authors:  M F Drummond
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  1992-01       Impact factor: 4.981

2.  Methodological and conduct principles for pharmacoeconomic research. Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America.

Authors:  K Clemens; R Townsend; F Luscombe; J Mauskopf; J Osterhaus; J Bobula
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  1995-08       Impact factor: 4.981

3.  Avoiding bias in the conduct and reporting of cost-effectiveness research sponsored by pharmaceutical companies.

Authors:  A L Hillman; J M Eisenberg; M V Pauly; B S Bloom; H Glick; B Kinosian; J S Schwartz
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1991-05-09       Impact factor: 91.245

4.  The existence of publication bias and risk factors for its occurrence.

Authors:  K Dickersin
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1990-03-09       Impact factor: 56.272

5.  The journal's policy on cost-effectiveness analyses.

Authors:  J P Kassirer; M Angell
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1994-09-08       Impact factor: 91.245

6.  The FDA and regulation of cost-effectiveness claims.

Authors:  P J Neumann; D E Zinner; A D Paltiel
Journal:  Health Aff (Millwood)       Date:  1996       Impact factor: 6.301

7.  The view from managed care pharmacy.

Authors:  B R Luce; C A Lyles; A M Rentz
Journal:  Health Aff (Millwood)       Date:  1996       Impact factor: 6.301

8.  Thyroid storm.

Authors:  D Rennie
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1997-04-16       Impact factor: 56.272

9.  Economic analysis of health care technology. A report on principles. Task Force on Principles for Economic Analysis of Health Care Technology.

Authors: 
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  1995-07-01       Impact factor: 25.391

10.  Ethics, economics, and the publication policies of major medical journals.

Authors:  K Schulman; D P Sulmasy; D Roney
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1994-07-13       Impact factor: 56.272

View more
  1 in total

Review 1.  Why are medical and health-related studies not being published? A systematic review of reasons given by investigators.

Authors:  Fujian Song; Yoon Loke; Lee Hooper
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-10-15       Impact factor: 3.240

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.