ReviewPharmacoEconomics1994
Methodological issues in economic assessments of new therapies. The case of colony-stimulating factors.
Review in PharmacoEconomics, 1994. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Economic evaluation of lenograstim (glycosylated rHuG-CSF) in the treatment of inflammatory breast cancer for Germany and Italy.PharmacoEconomics · 1994Trial
- Economic analysis of lenograstim in the correction of neutropenia following chemotherapy for non-Hodgkin's lymphoma.PharmacoEconomics · 1994Trial
- Challenges to the economic evaluation of new biotechnological interventions in healthcare.PharmacoEconomics · 1999Article
- Health economics and quality of life in cancer trials: report based on a UKCCCR workshop. United Kingdom Coordinating Committee on Cancer Research.British journal of cancer · 1998Article
- Autologous peripheral blood progenitor-cell transplantation versus autologous bone marrow transplantation for adults and children with non-leukaemic malignant disease. A randomised economic study.PharmacoEconomics · 1997Article
- Statistical analysis in pharmacoeconomic studies. A review of current issues and standards.PharmacoEconomics · 1996Review
- Overview of the lenograstim pharmacoeconomics programme.PharmacoEconomics · 1994Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Pharmacoeconomic evaluations estimate the value of medical interventions by comparing their clinical consequences and costs. Economic analyses, based on resource use data collected during 3 clinical trials of lenograstim, were performed as part of a lenograstim economic evaluation programme. Undertaking economic evaluations alongside clinical trials presents a number of methodological challenges, since the trials may be performed in atypical settings, have inappropriate follow-up, or use end-points that are not useful for economic evaluation. This paper reports on how these challenges were met in the lenograstim economic evaluation programme. In particular, it was decided that the evaluations would be based on an intent-to-treat perspective, with the same period of follow-up (for costs) for both lenograstim and vehicle groups.
Indexed as
Identifiers
10155592What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.