Comparative effectiveness

Current Opinion in Ophthalmology

Volumn 20, Issue 3, 2009, Pages 147-150

  Brown, Gary C ^a,b,c   Melissa, Brown M ^a,b,d  

^a CENTER FOR VALUE BASED MEDICINE   (United States)

^b Eye Research Institute   (United States)

^c THOMAS JEFFERSON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^d UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA   (United States)

Author keywords

Comparative effectiveness; Construct validity; Cost effectiveness; Time tradeoff utility analysis; Value based medicine

Indexed keywords

COMORBIDITY; CONSTRUCT VALIDITY; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; EDUCATIONAL STATUS; HEALTH STATUS; HUMAN; INCOME; INSTRUMENT; MEDICAL PRACTICE; PHYSICIAN; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITY OF LIFE; RELIABILITY; REVIEW; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEM; ECONOMICS; EYE DISEASE; FEMALE; HEALTH CARE DELIVERY; HEALTH SERVICES RESEARCH; MALE; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; QUALITY ADJUSTED LIFE YEAR; STANDARD;

COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; DECISION SUPPORT TECHNIQUES; DELIVERY OF HEALTH CARE; EYE DISEASES; FEMALE; HEALTH SERVICES RESEARCH; HEALTH STATUS; HUMANS; MALE; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT (HEALTH CARE); QUALITY OF LIFE; QUALITY-ADJUSTED LIFE YEARS;

EID: 65549162189     PISSN: 10408738     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/ICU.0b013e32832adf0c     Document Type: Review

References (28)

1. Senate Bill 3408. Comparative Effectiveness Research Act of 2008. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c110:1 :./temp/~c1109bCK2c:e1187.
2. [Accessed 10 January 2009]. This reference addresses the activities of a nongovernment-affiliated Healthcare Comparative Effectiveness Research Institute. It also familiarizes the reader with the critically important Thomas.loc.gov website in which the status of any Congressional bill can be investigated.
3. Brown MM, Brown GC, Sharma S. Evidence-based to value-based medicine. Chicago: AMA Press; 2005:; 1 -324.
4. Hochberg MC, Chang RW, Dwosh I, et al. The American College of Rheumatology revised criteria for the classification of global functional status in rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum 1992; 35:498-502.
5. National Eye Institute Visual Functioning Questionnaire-25. http://www. nei.nih.gov/resources/visionfunction/vfq-ia.pdf. [Accessed 29 January 2009].
6. Brown GC, Brown MM, Sharma S, et al. Quality-of-life associated with diabetes mellitus in an adult population. J Diabetes Complications 2000; 14:18-24.
7. Stein J, Brown GC, Brown MM, et al. The quality of life of patients with hypertension. J Clin Hypertens 2002; 4:181-188.
8. Brown GC. Vision and quality of life. Trans Am Ophthalmol Soc 1999; 97:473-512.
9. Brown MM, Brown GC, Sharma S, Shah G. Utility values and diabetic retinopathy. Am J Ophthalmol 1999; 128:324-330.
10. Brown GC, Sharma S, Brown MM, Kistler J. Utility values associated with age- related macular degeneration. Arch Ophthalmol 2000; 118:47-51.
11. Brown MM, Brown GC, Sharma S, et al. Quality of life associated with visual loss. Time tradeoff utility analysis comparison with systemic health states. Ophthalmology 2003; 110:1076-1081.
12. Brown MM, Brown GC, Sharma S, Landy J. Healthcare economic analyses and value-based medicine. Surv Ophthalmol 2003; 48:204-223.
13. Sharma S, Brown GC, Brown MM, et al. Validity of the time trade-off and standard gamble methods of utility assessment in retinal patients. Br J Ophthalmol 2002; 86:493-496.
14. Luo BP, Brown GC, Luo SC, Brown MM. The quality-of-life associated with
15. presbyopia. Am J Ophthalmol 2008; 145:618-622.
16. This article assesses the quality-of-life associated with the common condition of presbyopia.
17. Real FJ, Brown GC, Brown H, Brown MM. The effect of comorbidities upon
18. patient health-related quality of life. Br J Ophthalmol 2008; 92:770-774. The article demonstrates the evidence supporting the concept that comorbidities generally do not affect the utility associated with a primary disease.
19. Bennett KJ, Torrance GW, Boyle MH, et al. Development and testing of a utility measure for major, unipolar depression (McSad). Qual Life Res 2000; 9:109-120.
20. Hollands H, Lam M, Pater J, et al. Reliability of the time trade-off technique of utility assessment in patients with retinal disease. Can J Ophthalmol 2001; 36:202-209.
21. Brown GC, Brown MM, Sharma S, et al. The reproducibility of ophthalmic utility values. Trans Am Ophthalmol Soc 2001; 99:199-203.
22. Godshalk A, Brown GC, Brown H, Brown MM. The power of hope: being a • doctor is more than relying solely on the numbers. Br J Ophthalmol 2008; 92:783-787.
23. These authors demonstrate the critically important clinical detail that if a physician emphasizes primarily the negative aspects associated with a disease, the quality of life associated with that disease is 70% lower than if the information is presented in a more even or positive fashion.
24. Gold MR, Patrick DL, Torrance GW, et al. Identifying and valuing outcomes. In: Gold MR, Siegel JE, Russell LB, Weinstein MC, editors. Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. New York: Oxford University Press; 1996. pp. 82-134.
25. Stein JD, Brown MM, Brown GC, et al. Quality of life with macular degeneration. Perceptions of patients, clinicians and community members. Br J Ophthalmol 2003; 87:8-12.
26. Brown MM, Brown GC, Sharma S, et al. A utility analysis correlation with visual acuity: methodologies and vision in the better and poorer eyes. Int Ophthalmol 2001; 24:123-127.
27. Drummond ME, O'Brien B, Stoddart GL, Torrance GW. Methods for the economic evaluation of healthcare programmes. 2nd ed. New York: Oxford University Press; 2000:; 139-199.
28. Brown MM, Luo B, Brown HC, Brown GC. Comparative effectiveness. Its role in the healthcare system. Curr Opin Ophthalmol (in press).