It's time to choose the study design! Net benefit analysis of alternative study designs to acquire information for evaluation of health technologies

PharmacoEconomics

Volumn 25, Issue 11, 2007, Pages 903-911

  Shavit, Oren ^a   Leshno, Moshe ^b   Goldberger, Assaf ^b   Shmueli, Amir ^c   Hoffman, Amnon ^a  

^a HEBREW UNIVERSITY OF JERUSALEM   (Israel)

^b TEL AVIV UNIVERSITY   (Israel)

^c HEBREW UNIVERSITY OF JERUSALEM   (Israel)

Author keywords

Clinical trial design; Cost benefit; Cost effectiveness; Value of information analysis

Indexed keywords

ACCURACY; BIOMEDICAL TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; DECISION MAKING; ECONOMIC ASPECT; ECONOMIC EVALUATION; HEALTH CARE COST; HEALTH CARE PLANNING; HEALTH INSURANCE; HUMAN; PREDICTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; REIMBURSEMENT; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; REVIEW; SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS;

EID: 35548966132     PISSN: 11707690     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2165/00019053-200725110-00002     Document Type: Review

References (32)

1. Hunink M, Glasziou P, Siegel J, et al. Decision making in health and medicine, integrating evidence and values. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001
2. Ades AE, Lu G, Claxton K. Expected value of sample information calculations in medical decision modeling. Med Decis Making 2004; 24: 207-27
3. Claxton K. The irrelevance of inference: a decision-making approach to the stochastic evaluation of health care technologies. J Health Econ 1999; 18: 341-64
4. Claxton K. Bayesian approaches to the value of information: implications for the regulation of new pharmaceuticals. Health Econ 1999; 8: 269-74
5. Stinnett AA, Mullahy J. Net health benefits: a new framework for the analysis of uncertainty in cost-effectiveness analysis. Med Decis Making 1998; 18: s68-80
6. Drummond MF, Davies L. Economic analysis alongside clinical trials: revisiting the methodological issues. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 1991; 7 (4): 561-73
7. Kennedy WA, Laurier C, Ghezzo H, et al. Does clinical trial subject selection restrict the ability to generalize use and cost of health services to 'real life' subjects? Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2003; 19 (1): 8-16
8. Chalmers TC, Celano P, Sacks HS, et al. Bias in treatment assignment in controlled clinical trials. N Engl J Med 1983; 309: 1358-61
9. Chalmers TC, Matta RJ, Smith JR H, et al. Evidence favoring the use of anticoagulants in the hospital phase of acute myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med 1977; 219: 1091-6
10. Sacks H, Chalmers TC, Smith JR H. Randomized versus historical controls for clinical trials. Am J Med 1982; 72 (233): 240
11. Schulz KF, Chalmers I, Hayes RJ, et al. Empirical evidence of bias: dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials. JAMA 1995; 273: 408-12
12. Ho KKL, Thiessen JJ, Bryson SM, et al. Challenges in comparing treatment outcome from a prospective with that of a retrospective study: assessing the merit of gentamicin therapeutic drug monitoring in pediatric oncology. Ther Drug Monit 1994; 16: 238-47
13. Green SB, Byar DP. Using observational data from registries to compare treatments: the fallacy of omnimetrics. Stat Med 1984; 3: 361-70
14. Goldbourt U. Evaluating the association between drug use and outcome: should the information from observational studies affect therapeutic use? Cardiology 1997; 88 Suppl. 3: 63-7
15. Pocock SJ. The justification for randomized controlled trials: clinical trials. A practical approach. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1983
16. Pocock SJ, Elbourne DR. Randomized trials or observational tribulations? N Engl J Med 2000; 342 (25): 1907-9
17. Horwitz RI. Complexity and contradiction in clinical trial research. Am J Med 1987; 82: 498-510
18. Horwitz RI, Viscoli CM, Clemens JD, et al. Developing improved observational methods for evaluating therapeutic effectiveness. Am J Med 1990; 89: 630-8
19. Kunz R, Oxman AD. The unpredictability paradox: review of empirical comparisons of randomised and non-randomised clinical trials. BMJ 1998; 317: 1185-90
20. Nuijten MJC. The selection of data sources for use in modeling studies. Pharmacoeconomics 1998; 13 (3): 305-16
21. McKee M, Britton A, Black N, et al. Methods in health services research interpreting the evidence: choosing between randomized and non-randomized studies. BMJ 1999; 319: 312-5
22. Zaric GS. The impact of ignoring population heterogeneity when markov models are used in cost-effectiveness analysis. Med Decis Making 2003; 23: 379-96
23. Caro JJ, Migliaccio-Walle K. Generalizing the results of clinical trial to actual practice: the example of clopidogrel therapy for the prevention of vascular events. Am J Med 1999; 107: 568-72
24. Britton A, McKee M, Black N, et al. Choosing between randomised and non-randomised studies: a systematic review. Health Technol Assess 1998; 2 (13): i-iv, 1-124
25. Coyle D, Davies L, Drummond MF. Trials and tribulations: emerging issues in designing economic evaluations alongside clinical trials. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 1998; 14 (1): 135-44
26. McClellan MB, Newhouse JP. Overview of the special supplement issue. Instrumental variables analysis applications in health services research: a special supplement to HSR. Health Serv Res 2000; 35 (5 Pt 2): 1061-9
27. Newhouse JP, McClellan M. Econometrics in outcomes research: the use of instrumental variables. Annu Rev Public Health 1998; 19: 17-34
28. D'Agostino RBJ. Propensity score methods for bias reduction in the comparison of a treatment to a non-randomized control group. Stat Med 1998; 17 (19): 2265-81
29. Delong ER, Nelson CL, Wong JB, et al. Using observational data to estimate prognosis: an example using a coronary artery disease registry. Stat Med 2001; 20 (16): 2505-32
30. Weinstein MC, Toy EL, Sandberg EA, et al. Modeling for health care and other policy decisions: uses, roles and validity. Value Health 2001; 4 (5): 348-61
31. Claxton K, Sculpher M, Drummond M. A rational framework for decision making by the national institute for clinical excellence (NICE). Lancet 2002; 360: 711-5
32. Moscarini G, Smith L. The optimal level of experimentation. Econometrica 2001; 69 (6): 1629-44