Industry involvement and baseline assumptions of cost-effectiveness analyses: Diagnostic accuracy of the Papanicolaou test

CMAJ. Canadian Medical Association Journal

Volumn 183, Issue 6, 2011, Pages

  Polyzos, Nikolaos P ^a   Valachis, Antonis ^b   Mauri, Davide ^a   Ioannidis, John P A ^a,c,d  

^a UNIVERSITY OF IOANNINA   (Greece)

^b Onkologkliniken Sörmland   (Sweden)

^c STANFORD UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^d TUFTS MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CONFLICT OF INTEREST; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIAGNOSTIC TEST; FEMALE; GYNECOLOGICAL EXAMINATION; HUMAN; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; MEDICAL RESEARCH; MEDLINE; PAPANICOLAOU TEST; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW; UTERINE CERVIX CANCER; UTERINE CERVIX CYTOLOGY;

EID: 79953778308     PISSN: 08203946     EISSN: 14882329     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.101506     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. Bell CM, Urbach DR, Ray JG, et al. Bias in published cost effectiveness studies: systematic review. BMJ 2006;332:699-703.
2. Kassirer JP, Angell M. The journal's policy on cost-effectiveness analyses. N Engl J Med 1994;331:669-70.
3. Miners AH, Garau M, Fidan D, et al. Comparing estimates of cost effectiveness submitted to the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) by different organisations: retrospective study. BMJ 2005;330:65.
4. National Cancer Institute. Pap test Bethesda (MD): The Institute; 2010. Available: www .cancer .gov /cancertopics /factsheet/Detection /Pap-test (accessed July 23, 2010)
5. Arbyn M, Bergeron C, Klinkhamer P, et al. Liquid compared with conventional cervical cytology: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Obstet Gynecol 2008;111:167-77.
6. Nanda K, McCrory DC, Myers ER, et al. Accuracy of the Papanicolaou test in screening for and follow-up of cervical cytologic abnormalities: a systematic review. Ann Intern Med 2000; 132:810-9. (Pubitemid 30317797)
7. Fahey MT, Irwig L, Macaskill P. Meta-analysis of Pap test accuracy. Am J Epidemiol 1995;141:680-9.
8. Lexchin J, Bero LA, Djulbegovic B, et al. Pharmaceutical industry sponsorship and research outcome and quality: systematic review. BMJ 2003;326:1167-70. (Pubitemid 36649048)
9. Friedberg M, Saffran B, Stinson TJ, et al. Evaluation of conflict of interest in economic analyses of new drugs used in oncology. JAMA 1999;282:1453-7. (Pubitemid 29493799)
10. Baker CB, Johnsrud MT, Crismon ML, et al. Quantitative analysis of sponsorship bias in economic studies of antidepressants. Br J Psychiatry 2003;183:498-506.
11. Jang S, Chae YK, Haddad T, et al. Conflict of interest in economic analyses of aromatase inhibitors in breast cancer: a systematic review. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2010;121:273-9.
12. Hartmann M, Knoth H, Schulz D, et al. Industry-sponsored economic studies in oncology vs studies sponsored by nonprofit organizations. Br J Cancer 2003;89:1405-8. (Pubitemid 37386591)
13. Ligthart S, Vlemmix F, Dendukuri N, et al. The cost-effectiveness of drug-eluting stents: a systematic review. CMAJ 2007;176:199-205. (Pubitemid 46168380)
14. Fleurence RL, Spackman DE, Hollenbeak C. Does the funding source influence the result in economic evaluations? A case study in bisphosphonates for the treatment of osteoporosis. Pharmacoeconomics 2010;28:295-306.
15. Welsing PM, Severens JL, Laan RF. Optimistic assumptions in modelling studies have a substantial influence on the cost-effectiveness result. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2003;42:1574-5. (Pubitemid 37508941)
16. Beutels P. Potential conflicts of interest in vaccine economics research: a commentary with a case study of pneumonococcal conjugate vaccination. Vaccine 2004;22:3312-22. (Pubitemid 39078747)
17. Chauhan D, Miners AH, Fischer AJ. Exploration of the difference in results of economic submissions to the National Institute of Clinical Excellence by manufacturers and assessment groups. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2007;23:96-100. (Pubitemid 46648305)
18. Ferner RE, McDowell SE. How NICE may be outflanked. BMJ 2006;332:1268-71. (Pubitemid 44365422)
19. Miners AH, Garau M, Fidan D, et al. Comparing estimates of cost effectiveness submitted to the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) by different organizations: retrospective study. BMJ 2005;330:65.
20. Blum JA, Freeman K, Dart RC, et al. Requirements and definitions in conflict of interest policies of medical journals. JAMA 2009;302:2230-4.
21. Okike K, Kocher MS, Wei EX, et al. Accuracy of conflict-of-interest disclosures reported by physicians. N Engl J Med 2009;361:1466-74.
22. Diaz M, Kim JJ, Albero G, et al. Health and economic impact of HPV 16 and 18 vaccination and cervical cancer screening in India. Br J Cancer 2008;99:230-8.
23. Joura EA, Kjaer SK, Wheeler CM, et al. HPV antibody levels and clinical efficacy following administration of a prophylactic quadrivalent HPV vaccine. Vaccine 2008;26:6844-51.
24. Steinbrook R. Controlling conflict of interest - proposals from the Institute of Medicine. N Engl J Med 2009;360:2160-3.
25. Mandelblatt JS, Lawrence WF, Gaffikin L, et al. Costs and benefits of different strategies to screen for cervical cancer in less-developed countries. J Natl Cancer Inst 2002;94:1469-83. (Pubitemid 35243745)
26. Drummond M, Sculpher M. Common methodological flaws in economic evaluations. Med Care 2005;43:5-14.
27. Knox KS, Adams JR, Djulbegovic B, et al. Reporting and dissemination of industry versus non-profit sponsored economic analyses of six novel drugs used in oncology. Ann Oncol 2000;11:1591-5. (Pubitemid 32104759)
28. Neumann PJ, Fang CH, Cohen JT. 30 years of pharmaceutical cost-utility analyses: growth, diversity and methodological improvement. Pharmacoeconomics 2009;27:861-72.
29. Moses H III, Dorsey ER, Matheson DH, et al. Financial anatomy of biomedical research. JAMA 2005;294:1333-42. (Pubitemid 41345812)
30. Resnik DB. Perspective: disclosing hidden sources of funding. Acad Med 2009;84:1226-8.
31. Henschke CI, Yankelevitz DF, Libby DM, et al.; International Early Lung Cancer Action Program Investigators. Survival of patients with stage I lung cancer detected on CT screening. N Engl J Med 2006;355:1763-71. (Pubitemid 44631359)
32. Resnik D. The price of truth: how money affects the norms of science. New York (NY): Oxford University Press, 2007.