Literature DB >> 10186465

Reporting format for economic evaluation. Part II: Focus on modelling studies.

M J Nuijten1, M H Pronk, M J Brorens, Y A Hekster, J H Lockefeer, P A de Smet, G Bonsel, A van der Kuy.   

Abstract

This article presents the first version of a reporting format for modelling studies which is based on a general reporting format by our taskforce, which was published in the previous issue of this journal. The use of decision-analytical models for economic evaluations is increasing because, in practice, it is not always possible to derive information from prospective studies. However, the acceptance of modelling studies is generally lower than prospective studies not only because of the use of secondary data, but also because the reports of modelling studies do not always have sufficient transparency. Hence, a standardised reporting format may improve the transparency and, consequently, the acceptance of modelling studies. This article presents an example of a reporting format for economic evaluation based on modelling studies, which may facilitate the development of future guidelines for modelling studies. The format consists of a number of headings, which are followed by a brief recommendation on the content. This format does not deal with methodology and data management, but especially addresses validation and quality assurance, which may increase the transparency of the report.

Mesh:

Year:  1998        PMID: 10186465     DOI: 10.2165/00019053-199814030-00003

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


  2 in total

1.  Reporting format for economic evaluation. Part I: Application to the Dutch healthcare system.

Authors:  M J Nuijten; M J Brorens; Y A Hekster; A van der Kuy; J H Lockefeer; P A de Smet; G Bonsel; M H Pronk
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  1998-08       Impact factor: 4.981

2.  Report from the Canadian Coordinating Office for Health Technology Assessment (CCOHTA). Guidelines for economic evaluation of pharmaceuticals: Canada.

Authors: 
Journal:  Int J Technol Assess Health Care       Date:  1995       Impact factor: 2.188

  2 in total
  24 in total

1.  Expert judgement in pharmacoeconomic studies. Guidance and future use.

Authors:  C Evans; B Crawford
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2000-06       Impact factor: 4.981

2.  Adherence of pharmacoeconomic studies to national guidelines in the Netherlands.

Authors:  Jarir Atthobari; Jasper M Bos; Cornelis Boersma; Jacobus R B J Brouwers; Lolkje T W de Jong-van den Berg; Maarten J Postma
Journal:  Pharm World Sci       Date:  2005-10

Review 3.  Good practice guidelines for decision-analytic modelling in health technology assessment: a review and consolidation of quality assessment.

Authors:  Zoë Philips; Laura Bojke; Mark Sculpher; Karl Claxton; Su Golder
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2006       Impact factor: 4.981

4.  Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement.

Authors:  Don Husereau; Michael Drummond; Stavros Petrou; Chris Carswell; David Moher; Dan Greenberg; Federico Augustovski; Andrew H Briggs; Josephine Mauskopf; Elizabeth Loder
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2013-05       Impact factor: 4.981

5.  Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement.

Authors:  Don Husereau; Michael Drummond; Stavros Petrou; Chris Carswell; David Moher; Dan Greenberg; Federico Augustovski; Andrew H Briggs; Josephine Mauskopf; Elizabeth Loder
Journal:  Eur J Health Econ       Date:  2013-06

6.  Reporting guidelines: optimal use in preventive medicine and public health.

Authors:  Karyn Popham; William A Calo; Melissa Y Carpentier; Naomi E Chen; Samira A Kamrudin; Yen-Chi L Le; Katherine A Skala; Logan R Thornton; Patricia Dolan Mullen
Journal:  Am J Prev Med       Date:  2012-10       Impact factor: 5.043

Review 7.  A systematic review of models used in cost-effectiveness analyses of preventing osteoporotic fractures.

Authors:  L Si; T M Winzenberg; A J Palmer
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2013-10-24       Impact factor: 4.507

8.  Cost Effectiveness of Pharmacological Treatments for Asthma: A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Carlos E Rodriguez-Martinez; Monica P Sossa-Briceño; Jose A Castro-Rodriguez
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2018-10       Impact factor: 4.981

9.  The economic benefit of hip replacement: a 5-year follow-up of costs and outcomes in the Exeter Primary Outcomes Study.

Authors:  Richard Fordham; Jane Skinner; Xia Wang; John Nolan
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2012-05-25       Impact factor: 2.692

10.  Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement.

Authors:  Don Husereau; Michael Drummond; Stavros Petrou; Chris Carswell; David Moher; Dan Greenberg; Federico Augustovski; Andrew H Briggs; Josephine Mauskopf; Elizabeth Loder
Journal:  Cost Eff Resour Alloc       Date:  2013-03-25
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.