Literature DB >> 21402688

A glimpse into the black box of cost-effectiveness analyses.

Ava A John-Baptiste1, Chaim Bell.   

Abstract

Mesh：

Year:  2011        PMID： 21402688      PMCID： PMC3071404          DOI： 10.1503/cmaj.110384

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  CMAJ        ISSN： 0820-3946            Impact factor:   8.262


× No keyword cloud information.
  9 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

Review 2.  Pharmaceutical industry sponsorship and research outcome and quality: systematic review.

Authors:  Joel Lexchin; Lisa A Bero; Benjamin Djulbegovic; Otavio Clark
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2003-05-31

Review 3.  Modeling in pharmacoeconomic studies: funding sources and outcomes.

Authors:  Livio Garattini; Daniela Koleva; Gianluigi Casadei
Journal:  Int J Technol Assess Health Care       Date:  2010-07       Impact factor: 2.188

4.  Industry sponsored bias in cost effectiveness analyses.

Authors:  Ava John-Baptiste; Chaim Bell
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2010-10-13

Review 5.  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

6.  Exploration of the difference in results of economic submissions to the National Institute of Clinical Excellence by manufacturers and assessment groups.

Authors:  Deven Chauhan; Alec H Miners; Alastair J Fischer
Journal:  Int J Technol Assess Health Care       Date:  2007       Impact factor: 2.188

Review 7.  Bias in published cost effectiveness studies: systematic review.

Authors:  Chaim M Bell; David R Urbach; Joel G Ray; Ahmed Bayoumi; Allison B Rosen; Dan Greenberg; Peter J Neumann
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2006-02-22

8.  The journal's policy on cost-effectiveness analyses.

Authors:  J P Kassirer; M Angell
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1994-09-08       Impact factor: 91.245

9.  Industry involvement and baseline assumptions of cost-effectiveness analyses: diagnostic accuracy of the Papanicolaou test.

Authors:  Nikolaos P Polyzos; Antonis Valachis; Davide Mauri; John P A Ioannidis
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2011-03-14       Impact factor: 8.262
  9 in total
  4 in total

1.  Embracing the science of value in health.

Authors:  Murray Krahn; Stirling Bryan; Karen Lee; Peter J Neumann
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2019-07-02       Impact factor: 8.262

2.  Assessing cost-utility of predictive biomarkers in oncology: a streamlined approach.

Authors:  Anton Safonov; Shiyi Wang; Cary P Gross; Divyansh Agarwal; Giampaolo Bianchini; Lajos Pusztai; Christos Hatzis
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2016-01-09       Impact factor: 4.872

Review 3.  A systematic review and methodological evaluation of published cost-effectiveness analyses of aromatase inhibitors versus tamoxifen in early stage breast cancer.

Authors:  Ava A John-Baptiste; Wei Wu; Paula Rochon; Geoffrey M Anderson; Chaim M Bell
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-05-06       Impact factor: 3.240

Review 4.  When are statins cost-effective in cardiovascular prevention? A systematic review of sponsorship bias and conclusions in economic evaluations of statins.

Authors:  Ferrán Catalá-López; Gabriel Sanfélix-Gimeno; Manuel Ridao; Salvador Peiró
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-07-08       Impact factor: 3.240
  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.