Estimating qaly gains in applied studies: A review of cost-utility analyses published in 2010

PharmacoEconomics

Volumn 32, Issue 4, 2014, Pages 367-375

  Wisløff, Torbjørn ^a,b,c   Hagen, Gunhild ^a,d   Hamidi, Vida ^a   Movik, Espen ^a   Klemp, Marianne ^a,c   Olsen, Jan Abel ^a,e  

^a NORWEGIAN KNOWLEDGE CENTRE FOR THE HEALTH SERVICES   (Norway)

^b OSLO UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (Norway)

^c UNIVERSITY OF OSLO   (Norway)

^d NORWEGIAN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY   (Norway)

^e UNIVERSITY OF TROMSØ   (Norway)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

COST UTILITY ANALYSIS; HEALTH STATUS; NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE; PHARMACOECONOMICS; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITY ADJUSTED LIFE YEAR; REIMBURSEMENT; REVIEW; COST; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; HUMAN; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PROCEDURES;

COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; COSTS AND COST ANALYSIS; ECONOMICS, PHARMACEUTICAL; HUMANS; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT (HEALTH CARE); QUALITY-ADJUSTED LIFE YEARS; REIMBURSEMENT MECHANISMS;

EID: 84897503411     PISSN: 11707690     EISSN: 11792027     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s40273-014-0136-z     Document Type: Review

References (26)

1. http://www.ispor.org/PEguidelines/index.asp: ISPOR; [22.12.2013].
2. Richardson J, McKie J, Bariola E. Review and critique of health related multi attribute utility instruments. Centre for Health Economics: Monash University; 2011.
3. Hawthorne G, Richardson J, Day NA. A comparison of the Assessment of Quality of Life (AQoL) with four other generic utility instruments. Ann Med. 2001;33(5):358-70.
4. Grieve R, Grishchenko M, Cairns J. SF-6D versus EQ-5D: reasons for differences in utility scores and impact on reported cost-utility. Eur J Health Econ. 2009;10(1):15-23.
5. Fryback DG, Palta M, Cherepanov D, Bolt D, Kim JS. Comparison of 5 health-related quality-of-life indexes using item response theory analysis. Med Dec Making. 2010;30(1):5-15. (PubMed PMID: 19843961. Pubmed Central PMCID: 2812696).
6. Brazier J, Ratcliffe J, Salomon JA, Tsuchiya A. Measuring and valuing health benefits for economic evaluation. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2007.
7. Drummond MF, Sculpher MJ, Torrance GW, O'Brien BJ, Stoddart GL. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2005.
8. Claxton K, Martin S, Soares MO, Rice N, Spackman E, Hinde S, et al. Methods for the estimation of the NICE cost effectiveness threshold. York: University of York; 2013.
9. Buyx AM, Friedrich DR, Schone-Seifert B. Ethics and effectiveness: rationing healthcare by thresholds of minimum effectiveness. BMJ. 2011;342:d54.
10. Gyrd-Hansen D, Kristiansen IS. Preferences for 'life-saving' programmes: small for all or gambling for the prize? Health Econ. 2008;17(6):709-20.
11. Kvamme MK, Gyrd-Hansen D, Olsen JA, Kristiansen IS. Increasing marginal utility of small increases in life-expectancy? Results from a population survey. J Health Econ. 2010;29(4):541-8.
12. Bell CM, Urbach DR, Ray JG, Bayoumi A, Rosen AB, Greenberg D, et al. Bias in published cost effectiveness studies: systematic review. BMJ. 2006;332(7543):699-703 (PubMed PMID: 16495332. Pubmed Central PMCID: 1410902).
13. http://www.nets.nihr.ac.uk/programmes/hta: NIHR; [22.12.2013].
14. Grey matters: A practical search tool for evidence-based medicine. CADTH 2013.
15. Dolan P. Modeling valuations for EuroQol health states. Med Care. 1997;35(11):1095-108 (PubMed PMID: 9366889. English).
16. Gold MR, Siegel JE, Russell LB, Weinstein MC. Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1996.
17. Husereau D, Drummond M, Petrou S, Carswell C, Moher D, Greenberg D, et al. Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) Statement. PharmacoEconomics. 2013;31(5):361-367
18. Claxton K, Sculpher M, McCabe C, Briggs A, Akehurst R, Buxton M, et al. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis for NICE technology assessment: not an optional extra. Health Econ. 2005;14(4):339-47.
19. Claxton K. The irrelevance of inference: a decision-making approach to the stochastic evaluation of health care technologies. J Health Econ. 1999;18(3):341-64.
20. Centre for Reviews and Dissemination databases. http://www.crd.york.ac. uk/NIHR-CRDWEB/HomePage.asp [22.12.2013].
21. Rasanen P, Roine E, Sintonen H, Semberg-Konttinen V, Ryynanen OP, Roine R. Use of quality-adjusted life years for the estimation of effectiveness of health care: a systematic literature review. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2006;22(2):235-41 (PubMed PMID: 16571199).
22. Maklin S, Rasanen P, Laitinen R, Kovanen N, Autti-Ramo I, Sintonen H, et al. Quality-adjusted life-years for the estimation of effectiveness of screening programs: a systematic literature review. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2012;28(2):145-51.
23. Scuffham PA, Whitty JA, Mitchell A, Viney R. The use of QALY weights for QALY calculations: a review of industry submissions requesting listing on the Australian Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme 2002-4. PharmacoEconomics. 2008;26(4):297-310.
24. Pyne JM, Fortney JC, Tripathi SP, Maciejewski ML, Edlund MJ, Williams DK. Cost-effectiveness analysis of a rural telemedicine collaborative care intervention for depression. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2010;67(8):812-21.
25. NICE. Appraising life-extending, end of life treatments 2009 [13.06.2013]. http://www.nice.org.uk/media/E4A/79/SupplementaryAdviceTACEoL.pdf.
26. Brennan VK, Dixon S. Incorporating process utility into quality adjusted life years: a systematic review of empirical studies. PharmacoEconomics. 2013;31(8):677-91.