Literature DB >> 15647223

Comparative effectiveness: asking the right questions, choosing the right method.

Steven M Teutsch1, Marc L Berger, Milton C Weinstein.   

Abstract

The Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act (MMA) of 2003 has placed renewed focus on assessing the comparative effectiveness of various therapeutic options. Unfortunately, all of the evidence needed to fully assess these options is rarely available to drug formulary decisionmakers. Comparative randomized trials frequently fail to find differences when there indeed are some, while decision-modeling approaches are more likely to identify differences where there are none. We consider the consequences of these strategies. This paper proposes a framework for using different methods to assess available evidence. We contend that choosing the appropriate method can occur only when there are clear policy goals.

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 15647223     DOI: 10.1377/hlthaff.24.1.128

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Health Aff (Millwood)        ISSN: 0278-2715            Impact factor:   6.301


  9 in total

1.  What is the value of oncology medicines?

Authors:  Joshua Cohen; William Looney
Journal:  Nat Biotechnol       Date:  2010-11       Impact factor: 54.908

2.  Transparency in evidence evaluation and formulary decision-making: from conceptual development to real-world implementation.

Authors:  Bonnie B Dean; Kelly J Ko; Jennifer S Graff; A Russell Localio; Rolin Wade; Robert W Dubois
Journal:  P T       Date:  2013-08

3.  A CTSA agenda to advance methods for comparative effectiveness research.

Authors:  Mark Helfand; Sean Tunis; Evelyn P Whitlock; Stephen G Pauker; Anirban Basu; Jon Chilingerian; Frank E Harrell; David O Meltzer; Victor M Montori; Donald S Shepard; David M Kent
Journal:  Clin Transl Sci       Date:  2011-06       Impact factor: 4.689

4.  The economics of comparative effectiveness studies: societal and private perspectives and their implications for prioritizing public investments in comparative effectiveness research.

Authors:  David Meltzer; Anirban Basu; Rena Conti
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2010       Impact factor: 4.981

5.  Clinical practice patterns and cost effectiveness of human epidermal growth receptor 2 testing strategies in breast cancer patients.

Authors:  Kathryn A Phillips; Deborah A Marshall; Jennifer S Haas; Elena B Elkin; Su-Ying Liang; Michael J Hassett; Ilia Ferrusi; Jane E Brock; Stephanie L Van Bebber
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2009-11-15       Impact factor: 6.860

6.  A Cost-Utility Analysis of Lisdexamfetamine Versus Atomoxetine in the Treatment of Children and Adolescents with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder and Inadequate Response to Methylphenidate.

Authors:  Evelina A Zimovetz; Stephen M Beard; Paul Hodgkins; Matthias Bischof; Josephine A Mauskopf; Juliana Setyawan
Journal:  CNS Drugs       Date:  2016-10       Impact factor: 5.749

7.  Use of a decision-analytic model in a health technology assessment: beyond measuring value for money.

Authors:  Sun-Young Kim
Journal:  Isr J Health Policy Res       Date:  2013-04-22

8.  Does genomic risk information motivate people to change their behavior?

Authors:  Nora B Henrikson; Deborah Bowen; Wylie Burke
Journal:  Genome Med       Date:  2009-04-02       Impact factor: 11.117

9.  IMPACT--Integrative Medicine PrimAry Care Trial: protocol for a comparative effectiveness study of the clinical and cost outcomes of an integrative primary care clinic model.

Authors:  Patricia M Herman; Sally E Dodds; Melanie D Logue; Ivo Abraham; Rick A Rehfeld; Amy J Grizzle; Terry F Urbine; Randy Horwitz; Robert L Crocker; Victoria H Maizes
Journal:  BMC Complement Altern Med       Date:  2014-04-07       Impact factor: 3.659

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.