Literature DB >> 18380637

Practical guidelines for economic evaluations alongside equivalence trials.

Judith E Bosmans1, Martine C de Bruijne, Hein P J van Hout, Marleen L M Hermens, Herman J Adèr, Maurits W van Tulder.   

Abstract

An effective treatment already exists for many diseases. In these cases the effectiveness of a new treatment may be established by showing that the new treatment is as effective as (i.e., equivalent to) or at least as effective as (i.e., noninferior to) the old treatment. For an economic evaluation accompanying a clinical equivalence or noninferiority trial it is important to decide before the start of the study on the appropriate research question. In many cases the objective of the economic evaluation will be to show equivalence or noninferiority of the cost-effectiveness of the treatments. This has major implications for the design and analysis of the economic evaluation. In this article we propose methods for the analysis of economic equivalence and noninferiority studies that are similar to the methods applied to clinical equivalence and noninferiority trials. Furthermore, cost-effectiveness planes prove to be a valuable tool in the interpretation of the results in an economic equivalence or noninferiority trial. The concepts described in the article are illustrated using the results from an economic noninferiority trial.

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18380637     DOI: 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2007.00245.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Value Health        ISSN: 1098-3015            Impact factor:   5.725


  10 in total

1.  Economic evaluation of nurse practitioners versus GPs in treating common conditions.

Authors:  Angelique T M Dierick-van Daele; Lotte M G Steuten; Job F M Metsemakers; Emmy W C C Derckx; Cor Spreeuwenberg; Hubertus J M Vrijhoef
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  2010-01       Impact factor: 5.386

2.  CHAMP: Cognitive behaviour therapy for health anxiety in medical patients, a randomised controlled trial.

Authors:  Peter Tyrer; Sylvia Cooper; Helen Tyrer; Paul Salkovskis; Mike Crawford; John Green; Georgina Smith; Steven Reid; Simon Dupont; David Murphy; Sarah Byford; Duolao Wang; Barbara Barrett
Journal:  BMC Psychiatry       Date:  2011-06-14       Impact factor: 3.630

3.  The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a 'stepping into day treatment' approach versus inpatient treatment as usual for anorexia nervosa in adult specialist eating disorder services (DAISIES trial): a study protocol of a randomised controlled multi-centre open-label parallel group non-inferiority trial.

Authors:  Madeleine Irish; Bethan Dalton; Laura Potts; Catherine McCombie; James Shearer; Katie Au; Nikola Kern; Sam Clark-Stone; Frances Connan; A Louise Johnston; Stanimira Lazarova; Shiona Macdonald; Ciarán Newell; Tayeem Pathan; Jackie Wales; Rebecca Cashmore; Sandra Marshall; Jon Arcelus; Paul Robinson; Hubertus Himmerich; Vanessa C Lawrence; Janet Treasure; Sarah Byford; Sabine Landau; Ulrike Schmidt
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2022-06-16       Impact factor: 2.728

4.  A randomised, controlled study of outcome and cost effectiveness for RA patients attending nurse-led rheumatology clinics: study protocol of an ongoing nationwide multi-centre study.

Authors:  Mwidimi Ndosi; Martyn Lewis; Claire Hale; Helen Quinn; Sarah Ryan; Paul Emery; Howard Bird; Jackie Hill
Journal:  Int J Nurs Stud       Date:  2011-02-19       Impact factor: 5.837

5.  Blended vs. face-to-face cognitive behavioural treatment for major depression in specialized mental health care: study protocol of a randomized controlled cost-effectiveness trial.

Authors:  Lisa C Kooistra; Jenneke E Wiersma; Jeroen Ruwaard; Patricia van Oppen; Filip Smit; Joran Lokkerbol; Pim Cuijpers; Heleen Riper
Journal:  BMC Psychiatry       Date:  2014-10-18       Impact factor: 3.630

6.  Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Linagliptin in Japan Based on Results from the Asian Subpopulation in the CARMELINA® Trial.

Authors:  Hirotaka Watada; Hiroyuki Sakamaki; Daisuke Yabe; Fumiko Yamamoto; Tatsunori Murata; Keigo Hanada; Tetsuaki Hirase; Tomoo Okamura
Journal:  Diabetes Ther       Date:  2020-06-17       Impact factor: 2.945

7.  How do the costs of physical therapy and arthroscopic partial meniscectomy compare? A trial-based economic evaluation of two treatments in patients with meniscal tears alongside the ESCAPE study.

Authors:  Victor A van de Graaf; Johanna M van Dongen; Nienke W Willigenburg; Julia C A Noorduyn; Ise K Butter; Arthur de Gast; Daniel B F Saris; Maurits W van Tulder; Rudolf W Poolman
Journal:  Br J Sports Med       Date:  2019-06-21       Impact factor: 13.800

8.  Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of surgery versus casting for elderly patients with Displaced intra-Articular type C distal Radius fractures: protocol of a randomised controlled Trial with economic evaluation (the DART study).

Authors:  D P Ter Meulen; M A M Mulders; A A Kruiswijk; E J Kret; M E Slichter; J M van Dongen; G M M J Kerkhoffs; J C Goslings; Y V Kleinlugtenbelt; N W Willigenburg; N W L Schep; R W Poolman
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2022-04-01       Impact factor: 2.692

9.  Cost and outcome of behavioural activation versus cognitive behaviour therapy for depression (COBRA): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

Authors:  Shelley Rhodes; David A Richards; David Ekers; Dean McMillan; Sarah Byford; Paul A Farrand; Simon Gilbody; Steven D Hollon; Willem Kuyken; Christopher Martell; Heather A O'Mahen; Emer O'Neill; Nigel Reed; Rod S Taylor; Ed R Watkins; Kim A Wright
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2014-01-21       Impact factor: 2.279

10.  Trial-based clinical and economic analyses: the unhelpful quest for conformity.

Authors:  David G T Whitehurst; Stirling Bryan
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2013-12-05       Impact factor: 2.279

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.