Literature DB >> 16495332

Bias in published cost effectiveness studies: systematic review.

Chaim M Bell1, David R Urbach, Joel G Ray, Ahmed Bayoumi, Allison B Rosen, Dan Greenberg, Peter J Neumann.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To investigate if published studies tend to report favourable cost effectiveness ratios (below 20,000 dollars, 50,000 dollars, and 100,000 dollars per quality adjusted life year (QALY) gained) and evaluate study characteristics associated with this phenomenon.
DESIGN: Systematic review. Studies reviewed 494 English language studies measuring health effects in QALYs published up to December 2001 identified using Medline, HealthSTAR, CancerLit, Current Content, and EconLit databases. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Incremental cost effectiveness ratios measured in dollars set to the year of publication.
RESULTS: Approximately half the reported incremental cost effectiveness ratios (712 of 1433) were below 20,000 dollars/QALY. Studies funded by industry were more likely to report cost effectiveness ratios below 20,000 dollars/QALY (adjusted odds ratio 2.1, 95% confidence interval 1.3 to 3.3), 50,000 dollars/QALY (3.2, 1.8 to 5.7), and 100,000 dollars/QALY (3.3, 1.6 to 6.8). Studies of higher methodological quality (adjusted odds ratio 0.58, 0.37 to 0.91) and those conducted in Europe (0.59, 0.33 to 1.1) and the United States (0.44, 0.26 to 0.76) rather than elsewhere were less likely to report ratios below 20,000 dollars/QALY.
CONCLUSION: Most published analyses report favourable incremental cost effectiveness ratios. Studies funded by industry were more likely to report ratios below the three thresholds. Studies of higher methodological quality and those conducted in Europe and the US rather than elsewhere were less likely to report ratios below 20,000 dollars/QALY.

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16495332      PMCID: PMC1410902          DOI: 10.1136/bmj.38737.607558.80

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  BMJ        ISSN: 0959-8138


  39 in total

1.  Problems with the interpretation of pharmacoeconomic analyses: a review of submissions to the Australian Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme.

Authors:  S R Hill; A S Mitchell; D A Henry
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2000-04-26       Impact factor: 56.272

2.  The quality of reporting in published cost-utility analyses, 1976-1997.

Authors:  P J Neumann; P W Stone; R H Chapman; E A Sandberg; C M Bell
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2000-06-20       Impact factor: 25.391

3.  Evaluation of conflict of interest in economic analyses of new drugs used in oncology.

Authors:  M Friedberg; B Saffran; T J Stinson; W Nelson; C L Bennett
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1999-10-20       Impact factor: 56.272

4.  A comprehensive league table of cost-utility ratios and a sub-table of "panel-worthy" studies.

Authors:  R H Chapman; P W Stone; E A Sandberg; C Bell; P J Neumann
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2000 Oct-Dec       Impact factor: 2.583

Review 5.  Willingness to pay for a quality-adjusted life year: in search of a standard.

Authors:  R A Hirth; M E Chernew; E Miller; A M Fendrick; W G Weissert
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2000 Jul-Sep       Impact factor: 2.583

6.  Is there a kink in consumers' threshold value for cost-effectiveness in health care?

Authors:  Bernie J O'Brien; Kirsten Gertsen; Andrew R Willan; Lisa A Faulkner
Journal:  Health Econ       Date:  2002-03       Impact factor: 3.046

7.  Publication bias in editorial decision making.

Authors:  Carin M Olson; Drummond Rennie; Deborah Cook; Kay Dickersin; Annette Flanagin; Joseph W Hogan; Qi Zhu; Jennifer Reiling; Brian Pace
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2002-06-05       Impact factor: 56.272

8.  Choosing the method to match the perspective: economic assessment and its implications for health-services efficiency.

Authors:  Adam Oliver; Andrew Healey; Cam Donaldson
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2002-05-18       Impact factor: 79.321

Review 9.  Assessing quality in decision analytic cost-effectiveness models. A suggested framework and example of application.

Authors:  M Sculpher; E Fenwick; K Claxton
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2000-05       Impact factor: 4.981

10.  Incorporating economic evaluations into decision-making: the Ontario experience.

Authors:  Andreas Laupacis
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2005-07       Impact factor: 2.983

View more
  122 in total

Review 1.  Modelling the cost effectiveness of treatments for Parkinson's disease: a methodological review.

Authors:  Judith Dams; Bernhard Bornschein; Jens Peter Reese; Annette Conrads-Frank; Wolfgang H Oertel; Uwe Siebert; Richard Dodel
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2011-12       Impact factor: 4.981

2.  Medical reversal: why we must raise the bar before adopting new technologies.

Authors:  Vinay Prasad; Adam Cifu
Journal:  Yale J Biol Med       Date:  2011-12

Review 3.  The cost-effectiveness of biopharmaceuticals: a look at the evidence.

Authors:  Andrew W Wilson; Peter J Neumann
Journal:  MAbs       Date:  2012-03-01       Impact factor: 5.857

Review 4.  The state of health economic evaluation research in Nigeria: a systematic review.

Authors:  Paul Gavaza; Karen L Rascati; Abiola O Oladapo; Star Khoza
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2010       Impact factor: 4.981

5.  Use of economic evaluation in decision making: evidence and recommendations for improvement.

Authors:  Steven Simoens
Journal:  Drugs       Date:  2010-10-22       Impact factor: 9.546

6.  How should we assess the value of innovative drugs in oncology? Lessons from cost-effectiveness analyses.

Authors:  Vinay Prasad; Sham Mailankody
Journal:  Blood       Date:  2015-08-28       Impact factor: 22.113

7.  Differences in the Selection of Health State Utility Values by Sponsorship in Published Cost-Effectiveness Analyses.

Authors:  Nathaniel Hendrix; David D Kim; Krishna S Patel; Beth Devine
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2021-01-15       Impact factor: 2.583

Review 8.  The cost-effectiveness of drug-eluting stents: a systematic review.

Authors:  Suzanne Ligthart; Floortje Vlemmix; Nandini Dendukuri; James M Brophy
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2006-12-19       Impact factor: 8.262

Review 9.  The place of DPP-4 inhibitors in the treatment algorithm of diabetes type 2: a systematic review of cost-effectiveness studies.

Authors:  Alexandre Baptista; Inês Teixeira; Sónia Romano; António Vaz Carneiro; Julian Perelman
Journal:  Eur J Health Econ       Date:  2016-10-17

Review 10.  When is cancer care cost-effective? A systematic overview of cost-utility analyses in oncology.

Authors:  Dan Greenberg; Craig Earle; Chi-Hui Fang; Adi Eldar-Lissai; Peter J Neumann
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2010-01-07       Impact factor: 13.506

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.