Literature DB >> 10668346

[German recommendations for health care economic evaluation studies. Revised version of the Hannover consensus. Hannover Consensus Group].

.   

Abstract

Financial restrictions and stronger orientation towards outcomes increasingly demand rational decisions to be made about the use of resources in the health care system. Such decisions are the subject of medical, ethical and economic considerations. Management of the health care system requires medical and economic orientation both at the general level and with regard to the selection of suitable forms of care in hospital and medical practices. In this context, evaluative health economics can be a valuable decision-making aid. In order for the results of health economic evaluation studies to be validly interpreted, a minimum of standard methodology and sufficient transparency is required. To this end, recommendations were developed. They are intended to convey standard approaches, without unnecessarily constraining methodologic progress and scientific freedom. Ongoing refinement of the guidelines and adaptation of the current state of health economic research are desirable.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2000        PMID: 10668346

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med Klin (Munich)        ISSN: 0723-5003


  9 in total

1.  [Health economics--more important today than ever?].

Authors:  W L Gross; H Zeidler
Journal:  Z Rheumatol       Date:  2002-02       Impact factor: 1.372

2.  [Economic aspects of ambulatory and inpatient treatment of HIV positive patients].

Authors:  M Stoll; R E Schmidt
Journal:  Internist (Berl)       Date:  2003-06       Impact factor: 0.743

3.  A decision chart for assessing and improving the transferability of economic evaluation results between countries.

Authors:  Robert Welte; Talitha Feenstra; Hans Jager; Reiner Leidl
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2004       Impact factor: 4.981

4.  [Conceptual and methodological basics of cost assessments in rheumatology].

Authors:  J Ruof; J L Hülsemann; T Mittendorf; J-M von der Schulenburg; H Zeidler; S Merkesdal
Journal:  Z Rheumatol       Date:  2004-10       Impact factor: 1.372

Review 5.  Cost-effectiveness of rosiglitazone oral combination for the treatment of type 2 diabetes in Germany.

Authors:  Arran T Shearer; Adrian Bagust; Andreas Liebl; Oliver Schoeffski; Anita Goertz
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2006       Impact factor: 4.981

6.  Cost effectiveness of emedastine versus levocabastine in the treatment of allergic conjunctivitis in 7 European countries.

Authors:  C G Pinto; A Lafuma; F Fagnani; M J Nuijten; G Berdeaux
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2001       Impact factor: 4.981

7.  Association between visual acuity and medical and non-medical costs in patients with wet age-related macular degeneration in France, Germany and Italy.

Authors:  Francesco Bandello; Albert Augustin; José-Alain Sahel; Hicham Benhaddi; Cristina Negrini; Klaus Hieke; Gilles H Berdeaux
Journal:  Drugs Aging       Date:  2008       Impact factor: 3.923

Review 8.  Cost effectiveness of combination therapy with pioglitazone for type 2 diabetes mellitus from a german statutory healthcare perspective.

Authors:  Kurt Neeser; Georg Lübben; Uwe Siebert; Wendelin Schramm
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2004       Impact factor: 4.981

9.  Cost effectiveness of adding folinic acid to fluorouracil plus levamisole as adjuvant chemotherapy in patients with colon cancer in Germany.

Authors:  Brigitta U M Monz; Hans-Helmut König; Reiner Leidl; Ludger Staib; Karl-Heinrich Link
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2003       Impact factor: 4.981

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.