Transparency in economic evaluations

PharmacoEconomics

Volumn 23, Issue 10, 2005, Pages 967-969

  Hill, Suzanne ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NEWCASTLE   (Australia)

^b NEWCASTLE MATER HOSPITAL   (Australia)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ANTIDEPRESSANT AGENT;

COMMUNITY; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; DECISION MAKING; ECONOMIC ASPECT; EDITORIAL; MEDICAL LITERATURE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SOCIAL ENVIRONMENT;

BIOMEDICAL TECHNOLOGY; CLINICAL TRIALS; ECONOMICS, PHARMACEUTICAL; HUMANS; PERIODICALS;

EID: 27744491301     PISSN: 11707690     EISSN: 11707690     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2165/00019053-200523100-00001     Document Type: Editorial

References (15)

1. Vondeling H, Iversen PB. Reimbursement of glitazones in treatment of type 2 diabetes patients in Denmark in the context of a voluntary system for submitting pharmacoeconomic studies. Eur J Health Econ 2004; 5: 263-9
2. Ahuja J, Gipta M, Gupta AK, et al. Pharmacoeconomics. Natl Med J India 2004; 17: 80-3
3. Collazo Herrera MM. The practical application of pharmacoeconomics in the use of drugs in Cuba. Braz J Pharm Sci 2004; 40: 539-48
4. Jefferson T, Demicheli V. Quality of economic evaluations in health care. BMJ 2002; 324: 313-4
5. O'Brien B. Economic evaluation of pharmaceuticals: Frankenstein's monster or vampire of trials. Med Care 1996; 34: DS99-108
6. Goodacre S, McCabe C. Being economical with the truth: how to make your idea appear cost effective. Emerg Med J 2002; 19: 310-04
7. Baker BB, Johnsrud MT, Crismon ML, et al. Quantitative analysis of sponsorship bias in economic studies of antidepressants. Br J Psychiatry 2003; 183: 498-506
8. Spiegel BM, Targownik LE, Kanwal F, et al. The quality of published health economic analyses in digestive diseases: a systematic review and quantitative appraisal. Gastroenterology 2004; 127: 403-11
9. Friedberg M, Saffarn B, Stinson TJ, et al. Evaluation of conflict of interest in economic analyses of new drugs used in oncology. JAMA 1999; 282: 1453-7
10. Weinstein MC, O'Brien B, Hornberger J, et al. Principles of good practice for decision analytic modeling in health care evaluation: report of the ISPOR task force on good research practices: modeling studies. Value Health 2003; 6: 9-17
11. Lexchin J, Bero LA, Djulbegovic B, et al. Pharmaceutical industry sponsorship and research outcome and quality: systematic review. BMJ 2003; 326: 1167-77
12. Als-Nielsen B, Chen W, Gluud C, et al. Association of funding and conclusions in randomised drug trials: a reflection of treatment effect or adverse events? JAMA 2003; 290: 921-8
13. Friedman LS, Richter ED. Relationship between conflicts of interest and research results. J Gen Intern Med 2004; 19: 51-6
14. De Angelis C, Drazen JM, Frizelle FA, et al. Is this clinical trial fully registered? A statement from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors [online]. Available from URL: http://www.icmje.org/clin_trialup.htm [Accessed 2005 Jul 4]
15. Drummond M, Sculpher M. Common methodological flaws in economic evaluations. Med Care 2005; 43: II5-II14