Evidence map›Paper›PMID 12109916›Full record

ReviewPharmacoEconomics2002

Methods for claims-based pharmacoeconomic studies in psychosis.

Frank Gianfrancesco, Ruey-Hua Wang, Ramy Mahmoud, Richard White

Abstract readComparative StudyReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in PharmacoEconomics, 2002. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. The impact on schizophrenia-related hospital utilization and costs of switching to long-acting risperidone injections in Sweden.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2010
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
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

4 authors.

Frank GianfrancescoHECON Associates, Inc, Montgomery Village, Maryland, USA. fgianf1708@aol.com
Ruey-Hua Wang
Ramy Mahmoud
Richard White

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Pharmacoeconomic studies using claims data are frequently employed to compare the healthcare costs associated with competing drugs. Different methodological approaches with varying limitations for evaluating claims data are reviewed within the context of psychosis. Intent-to-treat paradigms and mirror-image designs have limitations that can bias comparisons of health resource use and can be addressed through the use of drug treatment episodes. Health resource use is better measured in financial rather than volume amounts, to account for service intensity. However, financial measures reported in claims records need to be carefully chosen. Between-group comparisons are frequently affected by selection bias, and within-group comparisons are often limited by period bias. While selection bias can be addressed by controlling for patient factors such as disease severity, and period bias by controlling for trend, devising appropriate control measures from the limited information in claims data can be challenging. Healthcare data are often skewed, which affects statistical testing. While skewed data are commonly handled through log transformation, this method has serious limitations, potentially distorting pharmacoeconomic comparisons. Determining the most appropriate methods for claims-based data involves careful evaluation of the alternate approaches to best achieve the goals of a pharmacoeconomic investigation.

Indexed as

Antipsychotic AgentsBiasCost-Benefit AnalysisHealth ResourcesHumansInsurance Claim ReviewMultivariate AnalysisPatient SelectionPsychotic DisordersRegression AnalysisAntipsychotic Agents

Identifiers

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.