Literature DB >> 8461776

Some guidelines on the use of cost effectiveness league tables.

J Mason1, M Drummond, G Torrance.   

Abstract

Decisions to allocate resources in health care are increasingly influenced by relative cost effectiveness. To warn decision makers of some of the pitfalls currently found in cost effectiveness league tables and to suggest how meaningful comparisons may be made between health care technologies a published league table was scrutinised by examining its sources. This showed some of the methodological problems surrounding such tables and how such difficulties could be reduced in future. The source studies in the table featured different years of origin, discount rates, health state evaluations, settings, and types of comparison programmes; all of these differences may raise problems for meaningful comparison. Decision makers need to assess the relative value for money of competing health care interventions. In the absence of systematic comparisons such assessments are likely to take place informally. This will probably have a worse risk-benefit trade off than the formalized use of league tables.

Mesh:

Year:  1993        PMID: 8461776      PMCID: PMC1677169          DOI: 10.1136/bmj.306.6877.570

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  BMJ        ISSN: 0959-8138


  15 in total

1.  Discounting and health benefits: another perspective.

Authors:  J Cairns
Journal:  Health Econ       Date:  1992-04       Impact factor: 3.046

Review 2.  The economics of hypertension and stroke.

Authors:  G T Smith
Journal:  Am Heart J       Date:  1990-03       Impact factor: 4.749

Review 3.  Measurement of health state utilities for economic appraisal.

Authors:  G W Torrance
Journal:  J Health Econ       Date:  1986-03       Impact factor: 3.883

4.  Applications of cost-benefit analysis to health care. Departures from welfare economic theory.

Authors:  S Birch; C Donaldson
Journal:  J Health Econ       Date:  1987-09       Impact factor: 3.883

5.  The morality of transplantation.

Authors: 
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1991-07-10       Impact factor: 56.272

6.  Setting health care priorities in Oregon. Cost-effectiveness meets the rule of rescue.

Authors:  D C Hadorn
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1991-05-01       Impact factor: 56.272

7.  Economics of coronary artery bypass grafting.

Authors:  A Williams
Journal:  Br Med J (Clin Res Ed)       Date:  1985-08-03

8.  A utility maximization model for evaluation of health care programs.

Authors:  G W Torrance; W H Thomas; D L Sackett
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  1972       Impact factor: 3.402

9.  Cost-effectiveness of antepartum prevention of Rh immunization.

Authors:  G W Torrance; A Zipursky
Journal:  Clin Perinatol       Date:  1984-06       Impact factor: 3.430

10.  Steps towards cost-benefit analysis of regional neurosurgical care.

Authors:  J D Pickard; S Bailey; H Sanderson; M Rees; J S Garfield
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1990-09-29
View more
  38 in total

1.  Guidance for commissioners on the cost effectiveness of smoking cessation interventions. Health Educational Authority.

Authors:  S Parrott; C Godfrey; M Raw; R West; A McNeill
Journal:  Thorax       Date:  1998-12       Impact factor: 9.139

2.  HIV transmission and the cost-effectiveness of methadone maintenance.

Authors:  G S Zaric; P G Barnett; M L Brandeau
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  2000-07       Impact factor: 9.308

Review 3.  Management of cataract.

Authors:  R Dickson; A Eastwood; P Gill; A Melville; S O'Meara; T Sheldon
Journal:  Qual Health Care       Date:  1996-09

4.  A risk-adjusted approach to comparing the return on investment in health care programs.

Authors:  Pedram Sendi; Maiwenn J Al; Heinz Zimmermann
Journal:  Int J Health Care Finance Econ       Date:  2004-09

Review 5.  Statistical versus quantitative significance in the socioeconomic evaluation of medicines.

Authors:  B J O'Brien; M F Drummond
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  1994-05       Impact factor: 4.981

6.  Cost-per-QALY league tables: their role in pharmacoeconomic analysis.

Authors:  J M Mason
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  1994-06       Impact factor: 4.981

7.  Developing the QALY concept: exploring the problems of data acquisition.

Authors:  J Coast
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  1993-10       Impact factor: 4.981

8.  An economic analysis of the Survival and Ventricular Enlargement (SAVE) Study. Application to the United Kingdom.

Authors:  S Hummel; J Piercy; R Wright; A Davie; A Bagust; J McMurray
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  1997-08       Impact factor: 4.981

9.  Comments on economic evaluation of chemotherapy.

Authors:  S R Clausen; V Jøjnsson; M M Hansen; H Keiding; M Kjaer; B E Christensen; H Mouridsen; T Palshof; S W Hansen
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  1997-08       Impact factor: 4.981

Review 10.  Evaluating the impact of influenza vaccination. A North American perspective.

Authors:  D S Fedson
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  1996       Impact factor: 4.981

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.