Evidence map›Paper›PMID 10155586›Full record

ArticlePharmacoEconomics1994

The emerging government requirement for economic evaluation of pharmaceuticals.

M Drummond

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in PharmacoEconomics, 1994. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
7.2field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

M DrummondCentre for Health Economics, University of York, York, England.
University of York · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

With the advent of government guidelines for the provision of cost-effectiveness data, economic evidence has been elevated to a status similar to that of evidence of efficacy and safety, which is required before licensing of pharmaceutical products. Whilst the precise nature of government requirements is likely to vary from place to place, they pose a number of practical problems for pharmaceutical companies, in the funding of studies and in the need to modify the clinical trials programme to facilitate economic data collection. Economic evaluation requirements have been viewed by various parties as a basis for pricing and reimbursement, as a form of cost containment and as a way of securing more value for money in the healthcare system. It is unlikely that economic evidence could ever form the sole basis for setting price, since both industry and government often seek to introduce other factors into the price negotiations. Requirements for economic evidence may also be an inefficient form of cost containment, compared with other methods such as budgetary caps. These offer some potential as a way of securing more value for money, but they should be applied equally across all health technologies. In the future there needs to be much more clarity of purpose in government guidelines, and methodological standards for economic analysis need to be refined.

Indexed as

Clinical Trials as TopicCost ControlEconomics, PharmaceuticalGuidelines as TopicHealth PolicyInsurance, Health, Reimbursement

Identifiers

PMID10155586
OpenAlexW1970123925

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.