State-of-the-art principles and practices of medical economics

Haemophilia

Volumn 4, Issue 4, 1998, Pages 491-497

  Schramm, W ^a,c   Szucs, T D ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MUNICH   (Germany)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MILAN   (Italy)

^c LUDWIG MAXIMILIANS UNIVERSITY   (Germany)

Author keywords

Decision analysis; Economic evaluation; Health economics; Outcomes research

Indexed keywords

CONFERENCE PAPER; CONTINUING EDUCATION; ECONOMIC EVALUATION; EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE; HEALTH CARE COST; HEALTH CARE POLICY; HEALTH ECONOMICS; HEMOPHILIA; OUTCOMES RESEARCH; POLICY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RESOURCE ALLOCATION; RESOURCE MANAGEMENT;

EID: 0031877216     PISSN: 13518216     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2516.1998.440491.x     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (23)

1. Fuchs VR, Garber AM. The new technology assessment. N Engl J Med 1990; 323: 673-7.
2. Banta HD, Luce BR. Health Care Technology and Its Assessment. An International Perspective. Oxford; 1993.
3. Eisenberg JM. Clinical economics. A guide to the economic analysis of clinical practices. JAMA 1989; 262: 2879-86.
4. Luce BR, Elixhauser A. Standards for the Socioeconomic Evaluation of Health Care Services. Berlin: Springer; 1990.
5. Drummond MF, Stoddard GL, Torrance GW. Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes. Oxford: Oxford Medical Publications; 1987.
6. Szucs TD, Schramm W. Die sozioökonomische Evaluation. Einführung in die Methodologie. Hämostaseol 1994; 14: 84-9.
7. Drummond M. Cost-effectiveness league tables: more harm than good. Soc Sci Med 1993; 37(1): 33-40.
8. Commonwealth Department of Health, Housing and Community Services. Guidelines for the Pharmaceutical Industry on the Preparation of Submissions to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service; 1992.
9. Ministry of Health, Ontario. Ontario Guidelines for Economic Analysis of Pharmaceutical Products. Toronto: Ministry of Health; 1994.
10. Canadian Coordinating Office of Health Technology Assessment (CCOHTA). Guidelines for the Economic Evaluation of Pharmaceuticals. Ottawa, Canada: CCOHTA, 1994.
11. Department of Health and Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry. Guidelines for the Economic Evaluation of Pharmaceuticals. London: Department of Health; 1994.
12. Russsel LB, Gold MR, Siegel JE, Daniels N, Weinstein MC et al. The role of cost-effectiveness analysis in health and medicine. JAMA 1996; 276: 1172-7.
13. Kassirer JP, Angel M. The journal's policy on cost effectiveness analysis. N Engl J Med 1994; 331: 669-70.
14. Drummond MF, Jefferson TO et al, on behalf of the BMJ Economic Education Working Party. Guidelines for authors and peer reviewers of economic submissions to the BM]. BMJ 1996; 313: 275-83.
15. Schulman KA, Rubenstein LE, Glick HA et al. Relationships between sponsors and investigators in pharmacoeconomic and clinical research. PharmacoEconomics 1995; 7: 206-13.
16. Clemens K, Townsend, R, Luscombe F et al. Methodological and conduct principles for pharmacoeconomic research. PharmacoEconomics 1995; 8: 169-74.
17. Task Force on Principles for Economic Analysis of Health Care Principles. Economic analysis of health care technology. A report on principles. Ann Intern Med 1995; 123: 61-70.
18. Drummond MF, Brandt A, Luce B, Rovira J. Standardising methodologies for economic evaluation in health care. Int J Tech Ass Health Care 1993; 9: 26-36.
19. Coyle D. Increasing the impact of economic evaluations on health-care decision making. Discussion Paper 108. York; 1993.
20. Chalmers I, Haynes B. Reporting, updating, and correcting systematic reviews of the effects of health care. BMJ 1994; 309(6958): 862-5.
21. Chicoye A. Health Economics in Europe. IMS Strategic Reports; 1994.
22. Philipps DP, Kanter EJ et al. Importance of the lay press in the transmission of medical knowledge to the scientific community. N Engl J Med 1991; 325: 1180-3.
23. Davies L et al. Current status of economic appraisal of health technology in the European community: report of the network. Soc Sci Med 1994; 38: 1601-7.