OBJECTIVE: The objectives of this article are first to give an overview of the risks of bias in trial-based economic evaluations and, second, to identify how key sources for bias can be revealed and overcome (i.e. what bias-reducing strategies might be employed) in future trial-based economic evaluations in the field of health psychology. DESIGN: Narrative review discussing sources of bias in trial-based economic evaluations and bias-reducing strategies. RESULTS: We identified 11 biases and assigned them to a particular trial phase. A distinction is made between pre-trial biases, biases during the trial and biases that are relevant after the actual trial. All potential forms of bias are discussed in detail and strategies are shown to detect and overcome these biases. CONCLUSION: In order to avoid bias in trial-based economic evaluations, one has to be aware of all the possible forms of bias. All stakeholders have to examine trial-based economic evaluations in a rigorous and stringent manner. This article can be helpful in this examination as it gives an overview of the possible biases which researchers should take into account.
OBJECTIVE: The objectives of this article are first to give an overview of the risks of bias in trial-based economic evaluations and, second, to identify how key sources for bias can be revealed and overcome (i.e. what bias-reducing strategies might be employed) in future trial-based economic evaluations in the field of health psychology. DESIGN: Narrative review discussing sources of bias in trial-based economic evaluations and bias-reducing strategies. RESULTS: We identified 11 biases and assigned them to a particular trial phase. A distinction is made between pre-trial biases, biases during the trial and biases that are relevant after the actual trial. All potential forms of bias are discussed in detail and strategies are shown to detect and overcome these biases. CONCLUSION: In order to avoid bias in trial-based economic evaluations, one has to be aware of all the possible forms of bias. All stakeholders have to examine trial-based economic evaluations in a rigorous and stringent manner. This article can be helpful in this examination as it gives an overview of the possible biases which researchers should take into account.
Authors: Tessa De Vrieze; Nick Gebruers; Ines Nevelsteen; Wiebren A A Tjalma; Sarah Thomis; An De Groef; Lore Dams; Vincent Haenen; Nele Devoogdt Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2020-11-24 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: R Deviandri; H C van der Veen; A M T Lubis; I van den Akker-Scheek; M J Postma Journal: Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc Date: 2022-08-23 Impact factor: 4.114
Authors: Andrew Gallagher; Violetta Shersher; Duncan Mortimer; Helen Truby; Terry Haines Journal: Appl Health Econ Health Policy Date: 2022-09-27 Impact factor: 3.686
Authors: Ruben M W A Drost; Aggie T G Paulus; Astrid F Jander; Liesbeth Mercken; Hein de Vries; Dirk Ruwaard; Silvia M A A Evers Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2016-04-21 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: Susanne Mayer; Aggie T G Paulus; Agata Łaszewska; Judit Simon; Ruben M W A Drost; Dirk Ruwaard; Silvia M A A Evers Journal: Pharmacoeconomics Date: 2017-09 Impact factor: 4.981
Authors: Spyros Kolovos; Johanna M van Dongen; Heleen Riper; Claudia Buntrock; Pim Cuijpers; David D Ebert; Anna S Geraedts; Robin M Kenter; Stephanie Nobis; Andrea Smith; Lisanne Warmerdam; Jill A Hayden; Maurits W van Tulder; Judith E Bosmans Journal: Depress Anxiety Date: 2018-01-12 Impact factor: 6.505
Authors: Abdul K R Purba; Didik Setiawan; Erik Bathoorn; Maarten J Postma; Jan-Willem H Dik; Alex W Friedrich Journal: Front Pharmacol Date: 2018-07-18 Impact factor: 5.810