Literature DB >> 2111932

Using cost-effectiveness analysis to improve the efficiency of allocating funds to clinical trials.

A S Detsky1.   

Abstract

This study applied a cost-effectiveness model to seven randomized trials. The model demonstrates the effect of design choices made in the planning stages of a clinical trial on the costs and benefits derived from conducting the trial. The study focused on one parameter used to calculate sample size: the minimum clinically important difference in event rates between control and experimental therapies. The study shows that the model can be operationalized to these trials. A computerized software package and manual has been developed to simplify the calculations. While there was some variation in the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios across the seven trials in this study, all ratios may be below the funding threshold. This analytical technique can be used to demonstrate explicitly the resource consequences of the design of randomized trials and perhaps to set funding priorities.

Mesh:

Year:  1990        PMID: 2111932     DOI: 10.1002/sim.4780090124

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Stat Med        ISSN: 0277-6715            Impact factor:   2.373


  13 in total

Review 1.  Modelling in health economic evaluation. What is its place? What is its value?

Authors:  A Brennan; R Akehurst
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2000-05       Impact factor: 4.981

2.  Meta-analysis and quality of evidence in the economic evaluation of drug trials.

Authors:  R J Simes; P P Glasziou
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  1992-04       Impact factor: 4.981

Review 3.  On being a good listener: setting priorities for applied health services research.

Authors:  Jonathan Lomas; Naomi Fulop; Diane Gagnon; Pauline Allen
Journal:  Milbank Q       Date:  2003       Impact factor: 4.911

4.  Registry-based trials: a potential model for cost savings?

Authors:  Brett R Anderson; Evelyn G Gotlieb; Kevin Hill; Kimberly E McHugh; Mark A Scheurer; Carlos M Mery; Glenn J Pelletier; Jonathan R Kaltman; Owen J White; Felicia L Trachtenberg; Danielle Hollenbeck-Pringle; Brian W McCrindle; Donna M Sylvester; Aaron W Eckhauser; Sara K Pasquali; Jeffery B Anderson; Marcus S Schamberger; Subhadra Shashidharan; Jeffrey P Jacobs; Marshall L Jacobs; Marko Boskovski; Jane W Newburger; Meena Nathan
Journal:  Cardiol Young       Date:  2020-05-08       Impact factor: 1.093

5.  Simple, defensible sample sizes based on cost efficiency.

Authors:  Peter Bacchetti; Charles E McCulloch; Mark R Segal
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  2008-06       Impact factor: 2.571

6.  Quantitative Methods for Valuing Comparative Effectiveness Information.

Authors:  Anirban Basu; David Meltzer
Journal:  Biopharm Rep       Date:  2010

7.  Chest Computed Tomographic Image Screening for Cystic Lung Diseases in Patients with Spontaneous Pneumothorax Is Cost Effective.

Authors:  Nishant Gupta; Dale Langenderfer; Francis X McCormack; Daniel P Schauer; Mark H Eckman
Journal:  Ann Am Thorac Soc       Date:  2017-01

8.  Breaking free of sample size dogma to perform innovative translational research.

Authors:  Peter Bacchetti; Steven G Deeks; Joseph M McCune
Journal:  Sci Transl Med       Date:  2011-06-15       Impact factor: 17.956

Review 9.  Current sample size conventions: flaws, harms, and alternatives.

Authors:  Peter Bacchetti
Journal:  BMC Med       Date:  2010-03-22       Impact factor: 8.775

Review 10.  Predictive validity in drug discovery: what it is, why it matters and how to improve it.

Authors:  Jack W Scannell; James Bosley; John A Hickman; Gerard R Dawson; Hubert Truebel; Guilherme S Ferreira; Duncan Richards; J Mark Treherne
Journal:  Nat Rev Drug Discov       Date:  2022-10-04       Impact factor: 112.288

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.