ReviewPharmacoEconomics1998
Common errors and controversies in pharmacoeconomic analyses.
Review in PharmacoEconomics, 1998. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- A Simple Cost-Effectiveness Model of Screening: An Open-Source Teaching and Research Tool Coded in R.PharmacoEconomics - open · 2023Article
- Avoiding and identifying errors and other threats to the credibility of health economic models.PharmacoEconomics · 2014Article
- Hospitalisation Utilisation and Costs in Schizophrenia Patients in Finland before and after Initiation of Risperidone Long-Acting Injection.Schizophrenia research and treatment · 2012Article
- Making a case for employing a societal perspective in the evaluation of Medicaid prescription drug interventions.PharmacoEconomics · 2008Review
- Prospective study designs in outcomes research: the case of migraine.PharmacoEconomics · 2002Review
- Use of healthcare services by patients treated with risperidone versus conventional antipsychotic agents.PharmacoEconomics · 2002Article
- Methods for claims-based pharmacoeconomic studies in psychosis.PharmacoEconomics · 2002Review
- Pharmacoeconomics and health policy. Current applications and prospects for the future.PharmacoEconomics · 1999Article
- Common errors and controversies in pharmacoeconomic analyses.PharmacoEconomics · 1998Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The need to demonstrate the cost effectiveness of healthcare interventions has led to a rapid increase in the use of economic tools within pharmaceutical evaluations. Pharmacoeconomics is employed at many stages of the evaluation process, helping to predict which products are likely to be economically viable at an early stage, and providing information to aid price and reimbursement negotiations as well as formulary and purchasing decisions in conjunction with phase III and IV clinical trials. The ability of economic evaluations to accurately determine the best use of society's scarce resources, however, is strongly influenced by the existence of areas of confusion, controversy and dispute which hinder the researcher at every step. A good economic evaluation requires a number of ingredients including: (i) relevant, good quality clinical data, raising issues of trial design, sample size and perspective; (ii) relevant costs and outcomes, measured, valued and discounted credibly and accurately; (iii) appropriate methods of data analysis (statistical, incremental and sensitivity); and, once the trial is over, (iv) presentation of the results in a way which maximises the generalisability of the results and, hence, the usefulness of the research. None of these areas are trouble-free but with understanding and openness, mistakes can be minimised.
Indexed as
Identifiers
10179701What 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.