OBJECTIVE: This study examines the adherence of Dutch pharmacoeconomic studies to the national guidelines of conducting a pharmacoeconomic evaluation. METHODS: Dutch guidelines for pharmacoeconomic research were issued in 1999. All Dutch pharmacoeconomic studies that were published in English during 2000-2002 were selected for our review. Two reviewers examined each study for relevance and compared each study with the nine methodological guidelines selected. RESULTS: It was found that 29 studies satisfied the inclusion criteria. The societal perspective was taken in 13 out of the 29 studies (45%), an adequate time period of analysis was chosen in 21 (72%), effectiveness was explicitly differentiated from efficacy in 17 (59%), an incremental analysis was performed in 23 (79%), costs, benefits and health gains were discounted in 24 (83%), effectiveness was expressed in LYGs or QALYs in 16 (55%), reference prices were used in 8 (28%), subgroup analysis was presented in 13 (45%) and sensitivity analysis was included in 26 (90%). CONCLUSIONS: In this review we found that the adherence of studies to some of the Dutch guidelines for pharmacoeconomic studies is fair. However, major improvements are required with respect to the adoption of the societal perspective, presentation of adequate subgroup analyses and application of reference prices.
OBJECTIVE: This study examines the adherence of Dutch pharmacoeconomic studies to the national guidelines of conducting a pharmacoeconomic evaluation. METHODS: Dutch guidelines for pharmacoeconomic research were issued in 1999. All Dutch pharmacoeconomic studies that were published in English during 2000-2002 were selected for our review. Two reviewers examined each study for relevance and compared each study with the nine methodological guidelines selected. RESULTS: It was found that 29 studies satisfied the inclusion criteria. The societal perspective was taken in 13 out of the 29 studies (45%), an adequate time period of analysis was chosen in 21 (72%), effectiveness was explicitly differentiated from efficacy in 17 (59%), an incremental analysis was performed in 23 (79%), costs, benefits and health gains were discounted in 24 (83%), effectiveness was expressed in LYGs or QALYs in 16 (55%), reference prices were used in 8 (28%), subgroup analysis was presented in 13 (45%) and sensitivity analysis was included in 26 (90%). CONCLUSIONS: In this review we found that the adherence of studies to some of the Dutch guidelines for pharmacoeconomic studies is fair. However, major improvements are required with respect to the adoption of the societal perspective, presentation of adequate subgroup analyses and application of reference prices.
Authors: M J Nuijten; M H Pronk; M J Brorens; Y A Hekster; J H Lockefeer; P A de Smet; G Bonsel; A van der Kuy Journal: Pharmacoeconomics Date: 1998-09 Impact factor: 4.981
Authors: M Hartman; M Prins; O Q J Swinkels; J L Severens; Th De Boo; G J Van Der Wilt; P C M Van De Kerkhof; P G M Van Der Valk Journal: Br J Dermatol Date: 2002-09 Impact factor: 9.302