Transferability of economic evaluations of medical technologies: A new technology for orthopedic surgery

Expert Review of Medical Devices

Volumn 5, Issue 3, 2008, Pages 329-336

  Steuten, Lotte ^a   Vallejo Torres, Laura ^a   Young, Terry ^a   Buxton, Martin ^a  

^a BRUNEL UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Economic evaluation; Fibrin sealant; Medical technology; Medical technology assessment; Orthopedic surgery; Transferability

Indexed keywords

FIBRIN GLUE; HEMOSTATIC AGENT;

ARTICLE; BIOMEDICAL TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT; ECONOMIC EVALUATION; EDUCATION; HEALTH CARE COST; HEALTH CARE POLICY; HEALTH CARE SYSTEM; INFORMATION PROCESSING; LIFE EXPECTANCY; LIFESTYLE; MEDICAL DECISION MAKING; ORTHOPEDIC SURGERY; QUALITY OF LIFE; SOCIAL STATUS; TOTAL KNEE REPLACEMENT; DECISION MAKING; ECONOMICS; HUMAN; MEDICAL TECHNOLOGY; ORTHOPEDICS; REVIEW; TECHNOLOGY;

DECISION MAKING; FIBRIN TISSUE ADHESIVE; HUMANS; ORTHOPEDICS; TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER; TECHNOLOGY, MEDICAL;

EID: 48649091648     PISSN: 17434440     EISSN: 17452422     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1586/17434440.5.3.329     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. Kearney P, Stokoe G, Breithardt G et al.; Taskforce 2 of the ESC-Cardiovascular Round Table. Improving patient access to novel medical technologies in Europe. Eur. Heart J. 27, 882-885 (2007).
2. Siebert M, Clauss LC, Carlisc M et al. Health Technology Assessment for medical devices in Europe. Int. J. Technol. Assess. Health Care 18(3), 733-740 (2002).
3. Packer C, Simpson S, Stevens A et al.; EuroScan: the European Information Network on New and Changing Health Technologies. International diffusion of new technologies: a ten-country analysis of six health technologies. Int. J. Technol. Assess. Health Care 22(4), 419-428 (2006).
4. Manca A, Willan AR. "Lost in translation": accounting for between-country differences in the analysis of multinational cost-effectiveness data. Pharmacoeconomics 24(11), 1101-1119 (2006).
5. Welte R, Feenstra T, Jager H, Leidl R. A decision chart for assessing and improving the transferability of economic evaluations results between countries. Pharmacoeconomics 22(13), 857-876 (2004).
6. Sculpher MJ, Pang FS, Manca A et al. Generalisability in economic evaluation studies in healthcare: a review and case studies. Health Technol. Assess. 8(49), 1-206 (2004).
7. Goeree R, Burke N, O'Reilly D, Manca. A, Blackhouse G, Tarride J-E. Transferability of economic evaluations: approaches and factors to consider when using results from one geographic area for another. Curr. Med. Res. Opin. 23(4), 671-682 (2007).
8. Mason JM, Mason AR. The generalisability of pharmacoeconomic studies. Pharmacoeconomics 24(10), 937-945 (2006).
9. Boulenger S, Nixon J, Drummond M, Ulmann P, Rice S, De Pouvourville G. Can economic evaluations be made more transferable? Eur. J. Health Econ. 6, 334-346 (2005)
10. Drummond ME, O'Brien B, Stoddart G et al. Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes (Second Edition). Oxford University Press, NY, USA (1997).
11. National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE). Guide to the Methods of Technology Appraisal. NICE, London, UK (2003).
12. Biddle AKS. Modeling the use of triple combination therapy in five countries: Nevirapine, Zidovudine, and Didanosine. Value Health 3, 186-201 (2000).
13. Haycox A, Dubois D, Butterworth M. Customising an international disease management model to the needs of individual countries. Application to upper gastrointestinal disease. Pharmacoeconomics 14, 39-56 (1998).
14. Steuten LMG, Vallejo-Torres L, Bastide P, Buxton MJ. Cost-analysis of the use of fibrin sealant to minimize perioperative allogeneic transfusion requirement in total knee replacement. Proceedings of the 20th Annual Congress of the International Society for Technology in Arthroplasty Paris, France, 4-6 October 2007.
15. Claxton K, Sculpher M, Drummond M. A rational framework for decision making by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE). Lancet 360, 711-715 (2002).
16. Hutton J, Trueman P, Henshall C. Coverage with evidence development: an examination of conceptual and policy issues. Int. J. Technol. Assess. Health Care 23(4), 425-35 (2007).
17. PA Carless, Henry DA, Anthony DM. Use of fibrin sealant to minimize perioperative allogeneic blood transfusion. Br. J. Surg. 89, 695-703 (2002).
18. Blumberg N. Allogenetic transfusion and infection: economic and clinical implications. Semin. Hematol. 34(3 Suppl. 2), 34-40 (1997).
19. Martinowitz U, Saltz R. Fibrin sealant. Curr. Opin. Hematol. 3, 395-402 (1996).
20. Burnouf-Radosevich M, Gourban HA, Burnouf T. Fibrin sealant: scientific rationale, production methods, properties, and current clinical use. Vox. Sang. 72, 133-143 (1997).
21. Davies L et al. Cost-effectiveness of cell salvage and alternative methods of minimising perioperative allogeneic blood transfusion: a systematic review and economic model. Health. Technol. Assess. 10, 1-228 (2006).
22. Wang GJ, Hungerford DS, Savory CG et al. Use of fibrin sealant to reduce bloody drainage and haemoglobin loss after total knee arthroplasty. J. Bone Joint Surg. Am. 83, 1503-1505 (2001).
23. Levy O, Martinowitz U, Oran A et al. The use of fibrin tissue adhesive to reduce blood loss and the need for blood transfusion after total knee arthroplasty. A prospective, randomized multicentre study. J. Bone Joint Surg. Am. 81, 1580-15808 (1999).
24. Agrawal S, Davidson N, Walker M et al. Assessing the total costs of blood delivery to hospital oncology and haematology patients.Curr. Med. Res. Opin. 22, 1903-1909 (2006).
25. Health Evaluation SARL. Analyse Économique des Bases de PENC en Vue de Delterminer les Postes de Deprenses et Notamment les Dipenses des Produits Sanguins Labiles au Sein des GHM. HEVA, Lyon, France (2007).
26. G-DRG System Update, InEK 2006, Germany.