Cost-effectiveness of recombinant versus urinary follicle stimulating hormone; whose point of view?

Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica

Volumn 80, Issue 12, 2001, Pages 1141-1142

  Ola, B ^a   Afnan, M ^a   Sharif, K ^a   Hammadieh, N ^a   Papaioannou, S ^a   Coomarasamy, A ^a  

^a BIRMINGHAM WOMEN S HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Budget impact analysis; Cost effectiveness; Cost needed to treat; Follicle stimulating hormone

Indexed keywords

RECOMBINANT FOLLITROPIN; UROFOLLITROPIN;

ADULT; ARTICLE; BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATABASE; CASE REPORT; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; DRUG CHOICE; DRUG COST; EMBRYO TRANSFER; FEMALE; FEMALE INFERTILITY; FERTILIZATION IN VITRO; HUMAN; MONEY; PREGNANCY RATE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SUPEROVULATION;

ADULT; COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; DRUG COSTS; FEMALE; FERTILIZATION IN VITRO; FOLLICLE STIMULATING HORMONE; HUMANS; RECOMBINANT PROTEINS;

EID: 0035695682     PISSN: 00016349     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1034/j.1600-0412.2001.801213.x     Document Type: Article

References (5)

1. Recombinant versus urinary FSH for ovarian stimulation in assisted reproduction
2. A prospective, randomized, assessor blind, and multicentre study comparing recombinant and urinary follicle stimulating hormones (Puregon versus Metrodin) in in-vitro fertilization
3. How to read a paper: Papers that tell you what things cost (economic analyses)