Erratum: Study of progesterone for the prevention of preterm birth in twins (STOPPIT): Findings from a trial-based cost-effectiveness analysis (International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care (2010) 26 (141-148) DOI: 10.1017/S0266462310000036);Study of progesterone for the prevention of preterm birth in twins (STOPPIT): Findings from a trial-based cost-effectiveness analysis

International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care

Volumn 26, Issue 2, 2010, Pages 141-148

  Eddama, Oya ^a   Petrou, Stavros ^a   Regier, Dean ^a   Norrie, John ^b   MacLennan, Graeme ^c   MacKenzie, Fiona ^d   Norman, Jane E ^e  

^a UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF GLASGOW   (United Kingdom)

^c UNIVERSITY OF ABERDEEN   (United Kingdom)

^d UK   (United Kingdom)

^e UNIVERSITY OF EDINBURGH   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Cost effectiveness analysis; Economic evaluation; Obstetrics; Value of information

Indexed keywords

COST EFFECTIVENESS; COSTS; ECONOMIC ANALYSIS; HEALTH CARE; HOSPITALS; OBSTETRICS;

CONFIDENCE INTERVAL; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; ECONOMIC EVALUATIONS; ECONOMIC JUSTIFICATION; HEALTHCARE PROBLEMS; NON-PARAMETRIC BOOTSTRAP METHOD; VALUE OF INFORMATION; WILLINGNESS TO PAY;

COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS;

PLACEBO; PROGESTERONE;

ARTICLE; CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; FEMALE; HEALTH CARE COST; HEALTH CARE POLICY; HEALTH CARE UTILIZATION; HOSPITAL DISCHARGE; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MATERNITY WARD; MULTICENTER STUDY; PREMATURE LABOR; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; TREATMENT OUTCOME; TWIN PREGNANCY; UNITED KINGDOM;

EID: 77953591218     PISSN: 02664623     EISSN: 14716348     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S0266462310000930     Document Type: Erratum

References (23)

1. Barber JA, Thompson SG. Analysis of cost data in randomized trials:An application of the non-parametric bootstrap. Stat Med. 2000;19:3219-3236.
2. Berghella V, Odibo AO, ToMS, et al. Cerclage for short cervix on ultrasonography: Meta-analysis of trials using individual patient-level data. Obstet Gynecol. 2005;106:181-189.
3. Black WC. The cost-effectiveness plane: A graphical representation of cost-effectiveness. Med Decis Making. 1990;10:212-214.
4. Blondel B, Kogan MD, Alexander GR, et al. The impact of the increasing number of multiple births on the rates of preterm birth and low birthweight: An international study. Am J Pubic Health. 2002;92:1323-1330.
5. Caritis SN, Rouse DJ, Peaceman AM, et al. Prevention of preterm birth in triplets using 17 alpha-hydroxyprogesterone caproate: A randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2009;113(pt 1):285-292.
6. Curtis LA, ed. Unit costs of health and social care 2007. Canterbury, United Kingdom: Personal Social Services Research Unit, University of Kent; 2007.
7. Department of Health. National schedule for reference costs. London: DoH; 2008. Dodd JM, Flenady VJ, Cincotta R, Crowther CA. Progesterone for the prevention of preterm birth: A systematic review. Obstet Gynecol. 2007;112:127-134.
8. Drummond MF, O'Brien B, Stoddart GL, Torrance G. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1997.
9. Fenwick E, Claxton K, Sculpher M. Representing uncertainty: The role of cost-effectiveness acceptability curves. Health Econ. 2001;10:779-787.
10. Hintz SR, Kendrick DE, Vohr BR, et al. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Neonatal Research Network. Changes in neurodevelopmental outcomes at 18 to 22 months' corrected age among infants of less than 25 weeks' gestational age born in 1993-1999. Pediatrics. 2005;115:1645-1651.
11. Lim AC, Bloemenkamp KWM, Boer K, et al. Study protocol: Progesterone for the prevention of preterm birth in women with multiple pregnancies: The AMPHI Atrial.BMC Pregnancy Child birth. 2007;7:7.
12. Mugford M, Hutton G, Fox-Rushby J. Methods for economic evaluation alongside a multicentre trial in developing countries: A case study form theWHO Antenatal Care Randomised Controlled Trial. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol. 1998;12:75-97.
13. National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE). Guide to the methods of technology appraisal. NICE: London; 2004.
14. Norman JN,Mackenzie F, Owen P, et al. A randomised, double blind placebo controlled STudy of Progesterone for the Prevention of Preterm Birth In Twins (STOPPIT ), and ameta-analysis of the use of progesterone for prevention of preterm birth in twin pregnancy. Lancet. 2009;373:2034-2040.
15. Office for National Statistics. Birth statistics. http://www. statistics.gov.uk (accessed December 2009).
16. Papiernik E, Keith L, Oleszczuk JJ, Cervantes A. What interventions are useful in reducing the rate of preterm delivery in twins? Clin Obstet Gynecol. 1998;41:13-23.
17. Petrou S, Mehta Z, Hockley C, et al. The impact of preterm birth on hospital inpatient admissions and costs during the first five years of life. Pediatrics. 2003;112:1290-1297.
18. Petrou S. Economic consequences of preterm birth and low birthweight. BJOG. 2003;110(Suppl 20):17-23.
19. Raikou M, Briggs A, Gray A, McGuire A. Centre-specific or average unit costs in multi-centre studies? Some theory and simulation. Health Econ. 2000;9:191-198.
20. Repka MX. Ophthalmological problems of the premature infant. Ment Retard Dev Disabil Res Rev. 2000;8:249-257.
21. Rouse DJ, Caritis SN, Peaceman AM, et al. A trial of 17 alphahydroxyprogesterone caproate to prevent prematurity in twins. N Eng J Med. 2007;357:454-461
22. 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-S80.
23. van Baar AL, vanWassenaer AG, Briet JM, et al. Very preterm birth is associated with disabilities in multiple developmental domains. J Pediatr Psychol. 2005;30:247-255