Identifying research priorities: The value of information associated with repeat screening for age-related macular degeneration

Medical Decision Making

Volumn 28, Issue 1, 2008, Pages 33-43

  Bojke, Laura ^a   Claxton, Karl ^a   Sculpher, Mark J ^a   Palmer, Stephen ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF YORK   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Decision making; Modeling; Research prioritization

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; HEALTH CARE SYSTEM; HUMAN; MEDICAL DECISION MAKING; MEDICAL INFORMATION; MEDICAL RESEARCH; PHOTODYNAMIC THERAPY; QUALITY ADJUSTED LIFE YEAR; RETINA MACULA AGE RELATED DEGENERATION; VISUAL ACUITY;

DATA COLLECTION; GREAT BRITAIN; HEALTH POLICY; HUMANS; MACULAR DEGENERATION; MALE; MASS SCREENING; QUALITY-ADJUSTED LIFE YEARS; RESEARCH;

EID: 38349117503     PISSN: 0272989X     EISSN: 1552681X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0272989X07309638     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. Claxton K., Ginnelly L., Sculpher M., Philips Z., Palmer S. A pilot study on the use of decision theory and value of information analysis as part of the NHS health technology assessment programme: Health Technol Assess. 2004 ; 8: 1 - 103.
2. Michaud CM, Murray CJ, Bloom BR Burden of disease- implications for future research. JAMA. 2001 ; 285: 535 - 9.
3. Townsend J., Buxton M. Cost-effectiveness scenario analysis for a proposed trial of hormone replacement therapy. Health Policy. 1997 ; 39: 181 - 94.
4. Phelps CE, Parente ST Priority setting in medical technology and medical practice assessment. Med Care. 1990 ; 28: 703 - 23.
5. Davies L., Drummond MF, Papanikolaou P. Prioritizing investments in health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2000 ; 16: 73 - 91.
6. Buxton M., Hanney S. Assessing Payback from Department of Health Research and Development: Second Report. HERG Research Report 24. Uxbridge, UK: Brunel University ; 1997.
7. Raiffa H., Schlaifer R. Probability and Statistics for Business Decisions. New York: McGraw-Hill ; 1959.
8. Royal College of Ophthalmologists. Age Related Macular Degeneration: Guidelines. London: Royal College of Ophthalmologists ; 2000.
9. Meads C., Salas C., Roberts T., Moore D., Fry-Smith A., Hyde C. Clinical Effectiveness and Cost Utility of Photodynamic Therapy for Wet Age-Related Macular Degeneration. Birmingham, UK: West Midlands Health Technology Assessment Group, University of Birmingham ; 2002.
10. National Institute for Clinical Excellence. Guidance on the Use of Photodynamic Therapy for Age-Related Macular Degeneration: Technology Appraisal 68. London: National Institute for Clinical Excellence ; 2003.
11. AMD Alliance International. Amsler Grid: Check Your Eyesight. Toronto, Canada: AMD Alliance International ; 2002.
12. Briggs AH, Sculpher MJ An introduction to Markov modeling for economic evaluation. Pharmacoeconomics. 1998 ; 13: 397 - 409.
13. Gregor Z., Bird AC, Chisholm IH Senile disciform macular degeneration in the second eye. Br J Ophthalmol. 1977 ; 61: 141 - 7.
14. Schuchard R. Validity and interpretation of Amsler grid reports. Arch Ophthalmol. 1993 ; 111: 776 - 80.
15. Fine AM, Elmen MJ, Ebert JE, Prestia PA, Starr JS, Fine SL Earliest symptoms caused by neovascular membranes in the macula. Arch Ophthalmol. 1986 ; 104: 513 - 4.
16. Margherio RR, Margherio AR, DeSantis ME Laser treatments with verteporfin therapy and its potential impact on retinal practices. Retina 2000 ; 20: 325 - 30.
17. Smith D., Fenn P., Drummond M. Cost and effectiveness of photodynamic therapy with verteporfin for age-related macular degeneration: the UK case. Br J Ophthalmol. 2004 ; 88: 1107 - 12.
18. Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy. Health Service Financial Database. London: Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy ; 2001.
19. Bressler NM Photodynamic therapy of subfoveal choroidal neovascularization in age-related macular degeneration with verteporfin: two-year results of 2 randomized clinical trials-TAP report 2. Arch Ophthalmol. 2001 ; 119: 198 - 207.
20. Verteporfin in Photodynamic Therapy (VIP) Study Group. Verteporfin therapy of subfoveal choroidal neovascularization in age-related macular degeneration: two-year results of a randomized clinical trial including lesions with occult with no classic choroidal neovascularization. Am J Ophthalmol. 2001 ; 131: 541 - 60.
21. Office for National Statistics. Census 2001 Population in England and Wales. Newport, UK: Office for National Statistics ; 2002.
22. Brown M., Brown G., Sharma S., Kistlet J., Brown H. Utility values associated with blindness in an adult population. Br J Ophthalmol. 2001 ; 85: 327 - 31.
23. Johannesson M., Weinstein MC On the decision rules of cost-effectiveness analysis. J Health Econ. 1993 ; 12: 459 - 67.
24. Van Hout BA, Al MJ, Gordon GS, et al. Costs, effects and c/eratios alongside a clinical trial. Health Econ. 1994 ; 3: 309 - 19.
25. Fenwick E., Claxton K., Sculpher M. Representing uncertainty: the role of cost-effectiveness acceptability curves. Health Econ. 2001 ; 10: 779 - 89.
26. Ades AE, Lu G., Claxton K. Expected value of sample information in medical decision modeling. Med Decis Making. 2004 ; 24: 207 - 27.
27. 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.
28. Philips Z., Claxton K., Palmer S., Thompson K. The half life of truth? Appropriate time horizons for value of information analysis. Presented at: 27th Annual Meeting of the Society for Medical Decision Making ; San Francisco ; 2005.
29. HM Treasury. Green Book, Appraisal and Evaluation in Central Government. London: HM Treasury ; 2003.
30. National Institute for Clinical Excellence. A Guide for Manufacturers and Sponsors: Contributing to a Technology Appraisal. London: National Institute for Clinical Excellence ; 2004.