A tool to improve quality of reporting published economic analyses

International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care

Volumn 16, Issue 1, 2000, Pages 100-110

  Gerard, Karen ^a   Seymour, Janelle ^a,b   Smoker, Irenie ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY   (Australia)

^b UNIVERSITY OF ABERDEEN   (United Kingdom)

^c New South Wales Department of Health   (Australia)

Author keywords

Cost utility analysis; Economic evaluation; Guidelines; Reporting standards; Research in practice

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CLINICAL RESEARCH; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE; HEALTH CARE POLICY; HEALTH CARE SYSTEM; HEALTH ECONOMICS; MEDICAL DECISION MAKING; PEER REVIEW; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PUBLICATION; SCORING SYSTEM;

COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; EVALUATION STUDIES; FEASIBILITY STUDIES; OBSERVER VARIATION; PEER REVIEW; PILOT PROJECTS; PUBLISHING;

EID: 0034023283     PISSN: 02664623     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S0266462300016196     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. Adams, M. E., McCall, N., Gray, S. M., et al. Economic analysis in randomised control trials. Medical Care, 1992, 30, 231-43.
2. Baladi, J. F., Menon, D., & Otten, N. Use of economic evaluation guidelines: Two years experience in Canada. Health Economics, 1998, 7, 221-27.
3. Cairns, J. Economic evaluation in health care. London: The Nuffield Trust, 1998. Nuffield Occasional Paper, Health Economics Series: Paper No. 7.
4. Canadian Coordinating Office for Health Technology Assessment. Guidelines for economic evaluation of pharmaceuticals: Canada, 2nd ed. Ottawa: CCOHTA Publications, 1997.
5. The Cochrane Collaboration. Available at: http://www.cochrane.de/. Accessed September 25, 1998.
6. Commonwealth Department of Human Services and Health. Guidelines for the pharmaceutical industry on preparation of submissions to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee: Including major submissions involving economic analyses. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service, 1995.
7. Drummond, M. F., & Jefferson, T. O. Guidelines for authors and peer reviewers of economic submissions to the BMJ. British Medical Journal, 1996, 313, 275-83.
8. Gerard, K. Cost-utility in practice: A policy maker's guide to the state of the art. Health Policy, 1992, 21, 249-80.
9. Gerard, K., Smoker, I., & Seymour, J. Raising the quality of cost-utility analyses studies: Lessons learnt and still to learn. Health Policy, 1999, 46, 217-38.
10. Gold, M. R., Siegel, J. E., Russell, L. B., et al. Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. New York: Oxford University Press, 1996.
11. Harris, A., Crowley, S., Defina, J., et al. Checklist for the design protocols to collect economic data alongside clinical trials in Australia. Monash University: Centre for Health Program Evaluation, 1996. Working Paper 51.
12. Hutton, J. Economic evaluation of healthcare: A halfway technology. Health Economics, 1994, 3, 1-4.
13. Jefferson, T., & Demicheli, V. Assessing quality of economic submissions to the BMJ. British Medical Journal, 1995, 311, 393-94.
14. Jefferson, T., & Demicheli, V. Are guidelines for peer-reviewing economic evaluations necessary? A survey of current editorial practice. Health Economics, 1995, 4, 383-88.
15. Jefferson, T., Smith, R., Yee, Y., et al. Evaluating the BMJ guidelines for economic submissions. JAMA, 1998, 280, 275-77.
16. Jönsson, B. Economic evaluation of medical technologies in Sweden. Social Science and Medicine, 1997, 45, 597-604.
17. Lee, J. T., & Sanchez, L. A. Interpretation of 'cost-effective' and soundness of economic evaluations in the pharmacy literature. Australian Journal of Public Health, 1991, 48, 2622-27.
18. Maynard, A. Economic evaluation techniques in healthcare: Reinventing the wheel? PharmacoEeonomics, 1997, 11, 115-18.
19. National Health Service Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. Promoting the use of research-based knowledge in health care. Available at: http://nhscrd.york.ac.nk/welcome.html. Accessed June 18, 1998.
20. Neumann, P. J., Zinner, D. E., & Wright, J. C. Are methods for estimating QALYs in cost-effectiveness analysis improving? Medical Decision Making, 1997, 17, 402-08.
21. Nord, E. Towards quality assurance in QALY calculations. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 1993, 9, 37-45.
22. Office of Health Economics. Health economic evaluations database (HEED). London: OHE-IFPMA Database Limited, 1995-97.
23. Reinhardt, U. E. Making economic evaluation respectable. Social Science and Medicine, 1997, 45, 555-62.
24. Rutten, E. E. Economic evaluation in support of national health policy: The case of The Netherlands. Social Science and Medicine, 1997, 45, 605-20.
25. Seigel, J. E., Weinstein, M. C., Russell, L. B., et al. Recommendation for reporting cost-effectiveness analysis. JAMA, 1996, 276, 1339-41.
26. Salkeld, G., Davey, P., & Arnolda, G. A critical review of health-related economic evaluations in Australia: Implications for health policy. Health Policy, 1995, 31, 111-25.
27. Udvarhelyi, S., Colditz, G. A., Rai, A., et al. Cost-effectiveness and cost-benefit analyses in the medical literature: Are the methods being used correctly? Annals of Internal Medicine, 1992, 116, 238-44.