ArticlePharmacoEconomics1999
The revised Canadian Guidelines for the Economic Evaluation of Pharmaceuticals.
Article in PharmacoEconomics, 1999. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Systematic review of cost-effectiveness analyses of treatments for psoriasis.PharmacoEconomics · 2015Pooled it
- Cost-effectiveness of ocrelizumab for treatment of Iranian patients with relapsing multiple sclerosis.Current journal of neurology · 2021Article
- Cladribine tablets are a cost-effective strategy in high-disease activity relapsing multiple sclerosis patients in Iran.Current journal of neurology · 2021Article
- Cost-utility analysis of extensile lateral approach versus sinus tarsi approach in Sanders type II/III calcaneus fractures.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2020Article
- Economic evaluation of plerixafor for stem cell mobilization.The American journal of managed care · 2012Article
- Are complementary therapies and integrative care cost-effective? A systematic review of economic evaluations.BMJ open · 2012Article
- A pilot Internet "value of health" panel: recruitment, participation and compliance.Health and quality of life outcomes · 2006Article
- Economic evaluation of the artificial liver support system MARS in patients with acute-on-chronic liver failure.Cost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E · 2006Article
- Pharmacoeconomics of influenza vaccination for healthy working adults: reviewing the available evidence.Drugs · 2002Review
- Why has the use of health economic evaluation in Japan lagged behind that in other developed countries?PharmacoEconomics · 2002Review
- Information barriers to the implementation of economic evaluations in Japan.PharmacoEconomics · 2002Review
- Using economic evaluations to make formulary coverage decisions. So much for guidelines.PharmacoEconomics · 2000Article
- Pharmacoeconomics and health policy. Current applications and prospects for the future.PharmacoEconomics · 1999Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The first edition of the Guidelines for Economic Evaluation of Pharmaceuticals: Canada was published in November 1994. At that time, the Canadian Coordinating Office for Health Technology Assessment (CCOHTA) was assigned the task of maintaining and regularly updating the Canadian Guidelines. Since their introduction, a great deal of experience has been gained with the practical application of the guidelines. Their role has also evolved over time, from being a framework for pharmacoeconomic research to the point where a wide variety of decision-makers use economic evaluations based on the principles set out in the guidelines as a means of facilitating their formulary decisions. In addition, methodologies in certain areas (and the body of related research literature in general) have developed considerably over time. Given these changes in the science and the experience gained, CCOHTA convened a multi-disciplinary committee to address the need for revisions to the guidelines. The underlying principles of the review process were to keep the guidance nature of the document, to focus on the needs of 'doers' (so as to meet the information needs of 'users') and to provide information and advice in areas of controversy, with sound direction in areas of general agreement. The purpose of this review is three-fold: (i) to outline the process which lead to the revision of the Canadian Guidelines; (ii) to describe the major changes made to the second edition of this document; and (iii) to consider the 'next steps' as they relate to the impact of such guidelines and the measurement of outcomes related to economic assessments of pharmaceuticals in general.
Indexed as
Identifiers
10537963What 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.