Guidance on good practice in cost-effectiveness modeling: Is more needed?

Medical Decision Making

Volumn 27, Issue 4, 2007, Pages 350-351

  McCabe, Christopher ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LEEDS   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CLOPIDOGREL;

ACUTE CORONARY SYNDROME; AGE DISTRIBUTION; COHORT ANALYSIS; COMPARATIVE STUDY; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; ECONOMIC EVALUATION; EDITORIAL; GOOD CLINICAL PRACTICE; HEALTH CARE DISTRIBUTION; INTERVENTION STUDY; LIFE EXPECTANCY; MEDICAL DECISION MAKING; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; RESOURCE ALLOCATION; THEORETICAL MODEL;

AGE FACTORS; COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; DECISION SUPPORT TECHNIQUES; HUMANS; MODELS, ECONOMETRIC; PRACTICE GUIDELINES; TIME FACTORS;

EID: 34547098842     PISSN: 0272989X     EISSN: 1552681X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0272989X07305812     Document Type: Editorial

References (17)

1. Kassirer JP, Angell M. The journal's policy on cost effectiveness analyses [editorial]. N Engl J Med. 1994 ; 331 (10). 669 - 70.
2. Sheldon TA Problems of using modelling in the economic evaluation of health care. Health Econ. 1996 ; 5 (1). 1 - 11.
3. Drummond MF Economic analysis alongside clinical trials: problems and potential. J Rheumatol. 1995 ; 22: 1403 - 7.
4. Drummond M. Cost effectiveness guidelines for reimbursement of pharmaceuticals: is economic evaluation ready for its enhanced status? Health Econ. 1992 ; 1: 85 - 92.
5. Drummond M., Sculpher MJ, Torrance GW, O'Brien BJ, Stoddart GL Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes. 3 rd ed. Oxford (UK): Oxford University Press ; 2005.
6. Gold MR, Siegel JE, Russell LB, Weinstein MC Cost Effectiveness in Health and Medicine. Oxford (UK): Oxford University Press ; 1996.
7. Akehurst R., Anderson P., Brazier J., et al. Decision analytic modeling in the economic evaluation of health technologies. Pharmacoeconomics. 2000 ; 17: 443 - 4.
8. Weinstein MC, O'Brien B., Hornberger J., et al. Principles of good practice for decision analytic modelling in health care evaluation: report of the ISPOR Task Force on Good Research Practices-modelling studies. Value Health. 2003 ; 6 (1). 9 - 17.
9. Nice. Guide to the Methods of Health Technology Appraisal. London: NICE ; 2004.
10. Department of Health and Aging, Australian Government. Pharmaceutical benefits-committees. Available from: URL: http://www.health.gov.au/internet/ wcms/publishing.nsf/content/healthpbs-general-committ.htm.
11. Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health. Available from: URL: http://www.cadth.ca/index.php/en/home.
12. Haute Autorite de Sante. Available from: URL: http://www.has-sante.fr/ portail/display.jsp?id=j_5.
13. Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care. Available from: URL: http://www.iqwig.de/.
14. Norwegian Medicines Agency. Available from: URL: http://www. legemiddelverket.no/templates/InterPage____15421.aspx. 15. Karnon J., Brennan A., Akehurst RL A critique and impact analysis of decision modeling assumptions. Med Decis Making. 2007 ; 27: 491 - 499.
15. Miners AH, Garau M., Fidan D., Fischer A. Comparing estimates of cost effectiveness submitted to the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) by different organisations: retrospective study. BMJ. 2005 ; 330: 65 - 8.
16. Chilcott J., McCabe C., Tappenden P., et al. Modelling the cost effectiveness of interferon beta and glatiramer acetate in the management of multiple sclerosis. BMJ. 2003 ; 326: 526 - 31.
17. Drummond MF, Jefferson TO Guidelines for authors and peer reviewers of economic submissions to the BMJ. BMJ. 1996 ; 313: 2075 - 83.