ReviewPharmacoEconomics2002
Why has the use of health economic evaluation in Japan lagged behind that in other developed countries?
Review in PharmacoEconomics, 2002. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- A Systematic Review and Quality Assessment of Pharmacoeconomic Publications for China Compared to Internationally: Is the Quality of Evidence-Base Sufficient for Health Technology Assessment?International journal of health policy and management · 2025Pooled it
- The benefit of the supplementation of perioperative branched-chain amino acids in patients with surgical management for hepatocellular carcinoma: a preliminary study.Digestive diseases and sciences · 2008Article
- Analysis of yearly variations in drug expenditure for one patient using data warehouse in a hospital.Journal of medical systems · 2007Article
- Education in pharmacoeconomics: an international multidisciplinary view.PharmacoEconomics · 2004Review
- Information barriers to the implementation of economic evaluations in Japan.PharmacoEconomics · 2002Review
- The development and use of quality-of-life measures to evaluate health outcomes in Japan.PharmacoEconomics · 2002Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aging population and the increasing availability of new medical technologies, particularly pharmaceuticals, have led to growing pressure on governments worldwide to contain healthcare costs. Increasingly, economic evaluation is used to aid decisions on the reimbursement and formulary access of drugs, and pharmaceutical companies are often required to demonstrate the cost effectiveness of their products. Canada and the UK are examples of countries that have successfully incorporated mandatory requirements for economic evaluations into the decision-making process in healthcare. Japan faces cost-containment issues for its health and welfare system similar to those seen elsewhere in the world. Despite this, economic assessments are not currently used in the allocation of drug budgets. Reasons why economic evaluations for healthcare have not yet been used routinely in Japan include governmental approaches to healthcare cost containment, the pricing of pharmaceuticals, the organisation of the healthcare system, attitudes of the medical profession, and limited knowledge and expertise. However, small but encouraging steps are now being taken towards the introduction of economic evaluations in Japanese medicine.
Indexed as
Identifiers
12238943What 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.