ReviewPharmacoEconomics2003
Health-related quality of life and regulatory issues in the US and Canada.
Review in PharmacoEconomics, 2003. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
The purpose of this paper is to examine the utilisation of HR-QOL information by US and Canadian federal regulatory bodies, with a focus on pre- and postmarket product review processes. There are a number of challenges facing regulators in using HR-QOL data derived from clinical trials and/or pharmacoeconomic analyses. Some of these challenges are inherent to HR-QOL tools and methodologies, while others relate to their inappropriate application in clinical studies. Regulators also need to take some responsibility for the chasm that exists between the potential and the reality of the contribution of HR-QOL information in decision making. Federal regulators need to develop and promulgate clear guidances that will help improve the quality and validity of studies submitted for review, and greater transparency is needed in terms of how such information is used in the product review process. Advances in technology are sure to increase the volume and complexity of HR-QOL information collected within clinical trials, and regulators need to prepare themselves to address this influx of data. Key actions are proposed to improve both the credibility as well as the uptake of HR-QOL information within the regulatory process so that this important source of information can be used appropriately and to its full potential.
Indexed as
Identifiers
12678564What 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.