OBJECTIVE: This literature review makes a critical assessment of the methodology of the full economic evaluations (FEEs) conducted on colorectal cancer (CRC) pharmacological treatments. METHOD: A literature search of the international databases PubMed and EMBASE was carried out to find all the studies published in the English language on pharmacological treatments for CRC in the period 2001-2005. A checklist was adopted to analyse the 13 FEEs selected. Fourteen clinical trials were extracted from the references as sources of efficacy data and were reviewed separately according to a clinical checklist. Finally, the reliability of the 13 FEEs was assessed from the health authorities' perspective by applying a critical appraisal checklist of 16 items derived from the economic and clinical variables previously analysed. RESULTS: This review found that pharmacoeconomic studies on CRC showed important methodological weaknesses mainly regarding economic evaluation, whilst the sources of clinical evidence were of higher technical quality, although the clinical effectiveness of therapies was not fully sustained by their results.
OBJECTIVE: This literature review makes a critical assessment of the methodology of the full economic evaluations (FEEs) conducted on colorectal cancer (CRC) pharmacological treatments. METHOD: A literature search of the international databases PubMed and EMBASE was carried out to find all the studies published in the English language on pharmacological treatments for CRC in the period 2001-2005. A checklist was adopted to analyse the 13 FEEs selected. Fourteen clinical trials were extracted from the references as sources of efficacy data and were reviewed separately according to a clinical checklist. Finally, the reliability of the 13 FEEs was assessed from the health authorities' perspective by applying a critical appraisal checklist of 16 items derived from the economic and clinical variables previously analysed. RESULTS: This review found that pharmacoeconomic studies on CRC showed important methodological weaknesses mainly regarding economic evaluation, whilst the sources of clinical evidence were of higher technical quality, although the clinical effectiveness of therapies was not fully sustained by their results.