General population versus disease-specific event rate and cost estimates: Potential bias for economic appraisals

Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research

Volumn 10, Issue 4, 2010, Pages 379-384

  Goeree, Ron ^a,b   Oreilly, Daria ^a,b   Hopkins, Robert ^a,b   Blackhouse, Gordon ^a,b   Tarride, Jean Eric ^a,b   Xie, Feng ^a,b   Lim, Morgan ^a,b  

^a Research Institute   (Canada)

^b MCMASTER UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

Author keywords

bias; cost effectiveness analysis; cost of illness studies; error; excess cost; excess risk

Indexed keywords

ANALYTICAL ERROR; COMPLICATION; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; COST OF ILLNESS; DIABETES MELLITUS; ECONOMIC EVALUATION; GOOD CLINICAL PRACTICE; HEALTH PROGRAM; HUMAN; MEDICAL LITERATURE; POPULATION RESEARCH; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PRIMARY MEDICAL CARE; REVIEW; RISK REDUCTION; STATISTICAL MODEL;

BIAS (EPIDEMIOLOGY); COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; DIABETES COMPLICATIONS; DIABETES MELLITUS; EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE; GUIDELINES AS TOPIC; HEALTH CARE COSTS; HUMANS; MODELS, ECONOMIC; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 77955792958     PISSN: 14737167     EISSN: 17448379     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1586/erp.10.41     Document Type: Review

References (26)

1. Trueman P, Drummond M, Hutton J. Developing guidance for budget impact analysis. PharmacoEconomics 19(6), 609-621 (2001).
2. Orlewska E, Mierzejewski P. Proposal of Polish guidelines for conducting financial analysis and their comparison to existing guidance on budget impact in other countries. Value Health 7(1), 1-10 (2004).
3. Mauskopf JA, Sullivan SD, Annemans L, et al. Principles of good practice for budget impact analysis: report of the ISPOR Task Force on good research practices -budget impact analysis. Value Health 10(5), 336-347 (2007).
4. Capri S, Ceci A, Terranova L, et al. Guidelines for economic evaluations in Italy: recommendations from the Italian group of pharmacoeconomic studies. Drug Inf. J. 35(1), 189-201 (2001).
5. Szende A, Mogyorosy Z, Muszbek N, Nagy J, Pallos G, Dozsa C. Methodological guidelines for conducting economic evaluation of healthcare interventions in Hungary: a Hungarian proposal for methodology standards. Eur. J. Health Econ. 3(3), 196-206 (2002).
6. Ramsey S, Willke R, Briggs A, et al. Good research practices for cost-effectiveness analysis alongside clinical trials: the ISPOR RCT-CEA Task Force report. Value Health 8(5), 521-533 (2005).
7. von der Schulenburg J, Greiner W, Jost F, et al. German recommendations on health economic evaluation: third and updated version of the Hanover Consensus. Value Health 11(4), 539-544 (2008).
8. Halpern MT, Luce BR, Brown RE, Geneste B. Health and economic outcomes modeling practices: a suggested framework. Value Health 1(2), 131-147 (1998).
9. Hay J , Jackson J. Panel 2: methodological issues in conducting pharmacoeconomic evaluations -modeling studies. Value Health 2(2), 78-81 (1999).
10. Sculpher M, Fenwick E, Claxton K. Assessing quality in decision analytic cost-effectiveness models. A suggested framework and example of application. PharmacoEconomics 17(5), 461-477 (2000).
11. Weinstein MC, OBrien B, Hornberger J, et al. Principles of good practice for decision analytic modeling in health-care evaluation: report of the ISPOR Task Force on Good Research Practices -Modeling Studies. Value Health 6(1), 9-17 (2003).
12. Goeree R, OBrien BJ, Blackhouse G. Principles of good modeling practice in healthcare cost-effectiveness studies. Expert Rev. Pharmacoeconmics Outcomes Res. 4(2), 189-198 (2004).
13. Philips Z, Ginnelly L, Sculpher M, et al. Review of guidelines for good practice in decision-analytic modelling in health technology assessment. Health Technol. Assess. 8(36), iii-xi, 1 (2004).
14. Philips Z, Bojke L, Sculpher M, Claxton K, Golder S. Good practice guidelines for decision-analytic modelling in health technology assessment: a review and consolidation of quality assessment. PharmacoEconomics 24(4), 355-371 (2006).
15. Hailey D. Toward transparency in health technology assessment: a checklist for HTA reports. Int. J. Technol. Assess. Health Care 19(1), 1-7 (2003).
16. Canadian Coordinating Office for Health Technology Assessment. In: Guidelines for the Economic Evaluation of Health Technologies (3rd Edition). Canadian Coordinating Office for Health Technology Assessment. CCOHTA, Canada (2006).
17. Danish Centre for Health Technology Assessment. Health Technology Assessment Handbook. National Board of Health, Denmark (2007).
18. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Guide to the Methods of Technology Appraisal. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, UK (2008).
19. Akobundu E, Ju J, Blatt L, Mullins CD. Cost-of-illness studies: a review of current methods. PharmacoEconomics 24(9), 869-890 (2006).
20. Hux J, Tang M. Patterns of prevalence and incidence of diabetes. In: Diabetes in Ontario: an ICES practice atlas. Hux J, Booth G, Slaughter P (Eds.). Institute for Clinical and Evaluative Sciences, 1.1-1.18 (2003).
21. Goeree R, Lim ME, Hopkins R, et al. Prevalence, total and excess costs of diabetes and related complications in Ontario, Canada. Can. J. Diabetes 33(1), 35-45 (2009).
22. Goeree R, Lim ME, Hopkins R, et al. Excess risk of mortality and complications associated with newly diagnosed cases of diabetes in Ontario, Canada. Can. J. Diabetes 33(2), 93-104 (2009).
23. OReilly D, Hopkins R, Blackhouse G, et al. Long-term cost-utility analysis of a multidisciplinary primary care diabetes management program in Ontario. Can. J. Diabetes 31(3), 205-214 (2007).
24. Kuntz KM , Weinstein MC. Life expectancy biases in clinical decision modeling. Med. Decis. Making 15(2), 158-169 (1995).
25. International Society for Pharmaeconomics and Outcomes Research. Pharmacoeconomic guidelines around the world www.ispor/org/PEguidelines/index. asp (Accessed 4 April 2010)
26. International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research. ISPOR good outcomes research practices www.ispor.org/workpaper/practices-index.asp (Accessed 4 April 2010)