ArticlePharmacoEconomics1998
A reappraisal of economic evaluation of pharmaceuticals. Science or marketing?
Article in PharmacoEconomics, 1998. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- The quality of reporting methods and results of cost-effectiveness analyses in Spain: a methodological systematic review.Systematic reviews · 2016Pooled it
- Guideline
- Informing evidence-based medicine for opioid use disorder using pharmacoeconomic studies.Expert review of pharmacoeconomics & outcomes research · 2024Review
- Dutch guidelines for economic evaluation: 'from good to better' in theory but further away from pharmaceuticals in practice?Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine · 2017Article
- Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2013Article
- Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement.PharmacoEconomics · 2013Article
- Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement.Cost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E · 2013Article
- Burden of disease and economic evaluation of healthcare interventions: are we investigating what really matters?BMC health services research · 2011Article
- The role of economic evaluation in the decision-making process of family physicians: design and methods of a qualitative embedded multiple-case study.BMC family practice · 2009Article
- Meandering down the road to transparency.PharmacoEconomics · 2008Article
- Pharmacoeconomic studies in Italy: a critical review of the literature.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2007Review
- Pharmacy benefit management: enhancing the applicability of pharmacoeconomics for optimal decision making.PharmacoEconomics · 2002Article
- Conflict of interest in industry-sponsored economic evaluations: real or imagined?Current oncology reports · 2001Review
- Using economic evaluations to make formulary coverage decisions. So much for guidelines.PharmacoEconomics · 2000Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In pharmacoeconomic research sponsored by companies, there is an obvious tension between the desire to undertake studies to show a marketing advantage and the desire to adhere to good scientific principles. This tension was explored in an early issue of PharmacoEconomics and is now revisited 5 years on. Bias is still perceived to be a major problem in industry-sponsored studies, both by healthcare decision-makers and journal editors. However, the debate about bias has matured over the years. Also, actual evidence of bias in study methodology is sparse, although biases in study topic selection and in the use, in promotion, of study results have been found. A number of constructive suggestions have been made in the last 5 years for reducing potential bias. These include developing methodological guidelines and standards, improving the peer review process, clarifying contractual relationships between sponsors and analysts, and ensuring appropriate use of studies in promotional activities. However, further initiatives could be undertaken. These include additional guidelines for specific detailed areas of economic evaluation methodology, changes in the structure of funding for pharmacoeconomic research, more education of consumers for pharmacoeconomic data and more research partnerships between industry and its customers.
Indexed as
Identifiers
10182189What 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.