A proposal for guidelines for the economic evaluation of health interventions in Italy;Proposta di linee guida per la valutazione economica degli interventi sanitari in Italia

PharmacoEconomics - Italian Research Articles

Volumn 11, Issue 2, 2009, Pages 83-93

  Fattore, Giovanni ^a  

^a BOCCONI UNIVERSITY   (Italy)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BIOMEDICAL TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; ECONOMIC EVALUATION; EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE; HEALTH CARE COST; HEALTH ECONOMICS; HEALTH PROGRAM; HUMAN; ITALY; NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; QUALITY ADJUSTED LIFE YEAR; REVIEW;

EID: 77952810290     PISSN: 15909158     EISSN: 20356137     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/bf03320660     Document Type: Review

References (16)

1. Garattini L, Grilli R, Mantovani L, Scopelliti D. A proposal for Italian guidelines in pharmacoeconomics. Pharmacoeconomics 1995; 7: 1-6
2. Attanasio E, Bruzzi P, Capri S, et al. Raccomandazioni per la conduzione degli studi di farmacoeconomia: la guida GISF. Mecosan 1999; 29: 65-72
3. Age.Na.S (Agenzia Nazionale per i Servizi Sanitari Regionali). Linea guida per la valutazione economica in un modello di SSN pubblico universale e federale. Roma: ANSSR, 2007
4. Gold MR, Siegel JE, Russell LB, Weinstein MC. Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. New York: Oxford University Press, 1996
5. Drummond MF, Sculpher MJ, Torrance GW, et al. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. Third edition. New York: Oxford University Press, 2005
6. Higgins JPT, Green S. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Version 5.01. The Cochrane Collaboration, 2008. (disponibile su www.cochrane-handbook.org)
7. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE). Guide to the Methods of Technology Appraisal. Issue date: June 2008 (disponibile su http://www.nice.org.uk/media/B52/A7/TAMethodsGuideUpdatedJune2008.pdf)
8. Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health. Guidelines for the economic evaluation of health technologies: Canada. Third edition. Ottawa: CADTH, 2006
9. Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. CRD guidance for undertaking reviews in healthcare. York: CRD University of York, 2008 (disponibile su: http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/crd/crdreports.htm)
10. Glenny AM, Altman DG, Song F, et al. Indirect comparisons of competing interventions. Health Technol Assess 2005; 9: 1-148
11. Brooks R. EuroQol: the current state of play. Health Policy 1996; 37: 53-72
12. Brazier J, Roberts J, Deverill M. The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-36. J Health Econ 2002; 21: 271-292
13. Furlong W, Feeny D, Torrance GW, Barr RD. The Health Utility Index (HUI) system for assessing health-related quality of life in clinical studies. Ann Med 2001; 33: 375-384
14. Adam T, Koopmanschap MA, Evans DB. Cost-effectiveness analysis: can we reduce variability in costing methods? Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2003; 19: 407-420
15. McCabe C, Claxton K, Culyer A. The NICE cost-effectiveness threshold. What it is and what that means. Pharmacoeconomics 2008; 26: 733-744
16. Sculpher MJ, Pang FS, Manca A, et al. Generalisability in economic evaluation studies in healthcare: a review and case studies. Health Technol Assess 2004; 8: 1-192