OBJECTIVES: To review the economic evaluations (EEs) done in Italy by Italian authors, following a common scheme to allow some comparisons of the studies selected and with the international reviews. METHODS: We selected all the original studies published by Italian authors (in Italian or English) in national and international journals. The period considered was January 1994 to December 2001. Both full and partial economic evaluations were included. Three international databases were interrogated: MEDLINE, Embase, and HealthStar; further articles were added from the internal database of our center (CESAV), which also classifies Italian local publications and journals specialized in health economics. RESULTS: A total of ninety-nine studies were reviewed. More than half of the fifty-seven full EEs focused on drugs as type of intervention (n = 38), followed by diagnostic screening (n = 7). The NHS viewpoint was the most used (n = 55 studies), followed by that of society (n = 27) and hospitals (n = 12). Sixty-eight studies only analyzed direct costs and twenty-nine included both direct and indirect costs. Twenty-five of the thirty-eight pharmacoeconomic full EEs were sponsored by companies. In sixteen of the twenty-five sponsored studies, the sponsor's products were the dominant alternative. CONCLUSIONS: The review showed that, in Italy, like elsewhere, there is a gap between theory and practice in EEs, and sponsors can considerably affect the results of EEs.
OBJECTIVES: To review the economic evaluations (EEs) done in Italy by Italian authors, following a common scheme to allow some comparisons of the studies selected and with the international reviews. METHODS: We selected all the original studies published by Italian authors (in Italian or English) in national and international journals. The period considered was January 1994 to December 2001. Both full and partial economic evaluations were included. Three international databases were interrogated: MEDLINE, Embase, and HealthStar; further articles were added from the internal database of our center (CESAV), which also classifies Italian local publications and journals specialized in health economics. RESULTS: A total of ninety-nine studies were reviewed. More than half of the fifty-seven full EEs focused on drugs as type of intervention (n = 38), followed by diagnostic screening (n = 7). The NHS viewpoint was the most used (n = 55 studies), followed by that of society (n = 27) and hospitals (n = 12). Sixty-eight studies only analyzed direct costs and twenty-nine included both direct and indirect costs. Twenty-five of the thirty-eight pharmacoeconomic full EEs were sponsored by companies. In sixteen of the twenty-five sponsored studies, the sponsor's products were the dominant alternative. CONCLUSIONS: The review showed that, in Italy, like elsewhere, there is a gap between theory and practice in EEs, and sponsors can considerably affect the results of EEs.