Modelling in health economic evaluation: What is its place? What is its value?

PharmacoEconomics

Volumn 17, Issue 5, 2000, Pages 445-459

  Brennan, Alan ^a   Akehurst, Ron ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SHEFFIELD   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BIOMEDICAL TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT; CONFERENCE PAPER; DECISION THEORY; HEALTH ECONOMICS; OUTCOMES RESEARCH; POLICY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; STATISTICAL MODEL; UNITED KINGDOM;

EID: 0034086528     PISSN: 11707690     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2165/00019053-200017050-00004     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (49)

1. 1. Canadian Co-ordinating Office for Health Technology Assessment. Guidelines for the economic evaluation of pharmaceuticals. 1st ed. Ottawa: CCOHTA, 1994
2. 2. Department of Health, Housing and Community Services. Guidelines for the pharmaceutical industry on preparation of submissions to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service, 1995
3. 3. Eddy DM. Assessing medical technology. In: Eddy DM, editor. Technology assessment: the role of mathematical modelling. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1985: 144-75
4. 4. Eddy D. Should we change the rules for evaluating medical technologies? In: Gelijns A, editor. Modern methods of clinical investigation. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1990
5. 5. Rittenhouse B. Uses of models in economic evaluations of medicines and other health technologies. London: Office of Health Economics, 1996
6. 6. Luce BR. Policy implications of modelling the cost-effectiveness of health care technologies. Drug Info J 1995; 29: 1469-75
7. 7. Kassirer JP, Angell M. The journal's policy on cost-effectiveness analyses [editorial]. N Engl J Med 1994; 331 (10): 669-70
8. 8. Task Force on Principles for Economic Analysis of Health Care Technology. Economic analysis of health care technology: a report on principles. Ann Intern Med 1995; 122: 60-9
9. 9. Revicki DA, Frank L. Pharmacoeconomic evaluation in the resal world: effectiveness versus efficacy studies. Pharmacoeconomics 1999: 5 (5): 423-34
10. 10. Rizzo JD, Powe NR. Methodological hurdles in conducting pharmacoeconomic analyses. Pharmacoeconomics 1999: 15 (4): 339-55
11. 11. Sheldon TA. Problems of using modelling in the economic evaluation of health care. Health Econ 1996; 5: 1-11
12. 12. Buxton MJ, Drummond MF, Van Hout BA, et al. Modelling in economic evaluation: an unavoidable fact of life. Health Econ 1997; 6: 217-27
13. 13. OHE Briefing. The pros and cons of modelling in economic evaluation. London: Office of Health Economics, 1997
14. 14. Office of Health Economics. Handbook of the Office of Health Economics database of health economic evaluations. London: Office of Health Economics, 1998
15. 15. McGuire WP, Hoskins WJ, Brady MF, et al. Cyclophosphamide and cisplatin compared with paclitaxel and cisplatin in patients with stage III and stage IV ovarian cancer. N Engl J Med 1996; 334 (1): 1-6
16. 16. Beard SM, Coleman R, Radford J, et al. The use of cisplatin and paclitaxel as a first line treatment in ovarian cancer. Sheffield: Trent Institute for Health Services Research, Universities of Leicester, Nottingham and Sheffield, 1997
17. 17. Chilcott J, Golightly P, Jefferson D, et al. The use of riluzole in the treatment of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. Sheffield: Trent Institute for Health Services Research, 1997
18. 18. Cummings C. The use of olanzapine as a first and second choice treatment in schizophrenia. Birmingham: Department of Public Health and Epidemiology, University of Birmingham, 1998
19. 19. Beard SM, Brewin J, Packham C, et al. A review of the use of current atypical antipsychotics in the treatment of schizophrenia. Sheffield: Trent Institute for Health Services Research, Universities of Leicester, Nottingham and Sheffield, 1998
20. 20. US General Accounting Office. Cross-design synthesis: a new strategy for medical effectiveness research [US GAO/PEMD-92-18]. Washington, DC: US General Accounting Office, 1992
21. 21. Drummond MF, Davies L. Economic analysis alongside clinical trials. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 1991; 7: 561-73
22. 22. Knight C. Modelling Helicobactor pylori eradication: the HEALS model. Project report to Abbott Pharmaceutical. Sheffield: School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, 1999
23. 23. European Society of Primary Care Gastroenterology (ESCPG). Pan-European consensus on patient management strategies for H. pylori: the management of H. pylori infection [bulletin]. ESPCG Pan-European Consensus on Patient Management Strategies for H. pylori; 1998 May 9-10; Zurich
24. 24. Stevenson MD, Richards RG, Beard SM. The health economics of asthma and the role of antileukotrienes in the treatment of chronic asthma. Sheffield: Trent Institute for Health Services Research, Universities of Leicester, Nottingham and Sheffield, 1999
25. 25. Beard SM, Ward SE, Brennan A. ScHARR Project Report to SmithKline Beecham: sensitivity analysis of the 'ADEPT' Depression Management Model. Sheffield: School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, 1997
26. 26. Akehurst RL, Chilcott, JB, Holmes MW, et al. The economic implications of the use of basiliximab versus placebo for the control of acute cellular rejection in renal allograft recipients. Sheffield: School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, 1999
27. 27. Pickin MD, Payne JN, Haq IU, et al. Statin therapy/HMG-CoA reductase inhibitor treatment in the prevention of coronary heart disease. Sheffield: Trent Institute for Health Services Research, Universities of Leicester, Nottingham and Sheffield, 1996
28. 28. University of York. Cholesterol and coronary heart disease: screening and treatment. Eff Health Care 1998; 4 (II): 1-16
29. 29. Chilcott JB, Brennan A. Systematic review of the use of modelling in planning and prioritising clinical trials. International Society for Technology Assessment in Health Care (ISTAHC) Conference; 1999 Jun 20-23; Edinburgh
30. 30. Sculpher M, Drummond M, Buxton M. The iterative use of economic evaluation as part of the process of health technology assessment. J Health Serv Res Policy 1997; 2: 26-30
31. 31. Fenwick E, Sculpher M, Claxton K, et al. The role of decision analytical modelling improving the efficiency and relevance of health technology assessment. York: Health Economics Study Group, 1998
32. 32. Claxton K, Posnett J. An economic approach to clinical trial design and research priority setting. Health Econ 1996; 5 (6): 513-24
33. 33. Detsky AS. Using cost-effectiveness analysis to improve the efficiency of allocating funds to clinical trials. Stat Med 1990; 9: 173-84
34. 34. Briggs A, Sculpher M, Buxton M. Uncertainty in the economic evaluation of health care technologies: the role of sensitivity analysis. Health Econ 1994; 3: 95-104
35. 35. Beard SM, Lorigan P, Sampson F, et al. The effectiveness of high dose chemotherapy with autologous stem cell transplantation in the treatment of Hodgkin's disease and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. Sheffield: Trent Institute for Health Services Research, Universities of Leicester, Nottingham and Sheffield, 1998.
36. 36. Beard SM, Sampson FC, Vandenberghe E, et al. The effectiveness of high dose chemotherapy with autologous stem cell/bone marrow transplantation in the treatment of multiple myeloma. Sheffield: Trent Institute for Health Services Research, Universities of Leicester, Nottingham and Sheffield, 1998
37. 37. Stevenson MD, Beard SM, Oakley PA, et al. Modelling of the potential impact of a regional trauma system in patients with severe head injury. Sheffield: School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, 1998
38. 38. The ScHARR statins prescribing model. Available from URL: http://www.shef.ac.uk/~scharr/or/statins/ [Accessed 2000 Mar 20]
39. 39. Beard SM, Holmes M, Majeed A, et al. Hepatic resection as a treatment for liver metastases in colorectal cancer. Sheffield: Trent Institute for Health Services Research, Universities of Leicester, Nottingham and Sheffield, 1999
40. 40. Beard SM, Perez I, Touch S, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in the management of knee disorders. Sheffield: Trent Institute for Health Services Research, Universities of Leicester, Nottingham and Sheffield, 1998
41. 41. Robinson S. Successful simulation: a practical approach to simulation projects. London: McGraw-Hill, 1994
42. 42. Robinson S, Pidd M. Provider and customer expectations of successful simulation projects. J Oper Res Soc 1998; 49: 200-9
43. 43. Gass SI. OR in the real world: how things go wrong. Comput Oper Res 1991; 18 (7): 629-32
44. 44. Fossett CA, Harrison D, Weintrob H. An assessment procedure for simulation models: a case study. Operations Res Soc Am 1991; 39 (5): 710-24
45. 45. Finlay PN, Wilson JM. Orders of validation in mathematical modelling. J Oper Res Soc 1990; 41 (2): 103-9
46. 46. Gass SI. Model accreditation: a rationale and process for determining a numerical rating. Eur J Oper Res 1993; 66: 250-8
47. 47. Finlay PN, Forsey GJ, Wilson JM. The validation of expert systems: contrasts with traditional methods. J Oper Res Soc 1988; 39 (10): 933-8
48. 48. Sonnenberg FA, Roberts MS, Tsevat J, et al. Toward a peer review process for medical decision analysis models. Med Care 1994; 32 (7): JS52-64
49. 49. Delamothe T, Smith R. Moving beyond journals: the future arrives with a crash. BMJ 1999; 318: 1637-9