SynthesisPharmacy world & science : PWS2005
Adherence of pharmacoeconomic studies to national guidelines in the Netherlands.
Synthesis in Pharmacy world & science : PWS, 2005. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
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
objectiveThis study examines the adherence of Dutch pharmacoeconomic studies to the national guidelines of conducting a pharmacoeconomic evaluation.
methodsDutch guidelines for pharmacoeconomic research were issued in 1999. All Dutch pharmacoeconomic studies that were published in English during 2000-2002 were selected for our review. Two reviewers examined each study for relevance and compared each study with the nine methodological guidelines selected.
resultsIt was found that 29 studies satisfied the inclusion criteria. The societal perspective was taken in 13 out of the 29 studies (45%), an adequate time period of analysis was chosen in 21 (72%), effectiveness was explicitly differentiated from efficacy in 17 (59%), an incremental analysis was performed in 23 (79%), costs, benefits and health gains were discounted in 24 (83%), effectiveness was expressed in LYGs or QALYs in 16 (55%), reference prices were used in 8 (28%), subgroup analysis was presented in 13 (45%) and sensitivity analysis was included in 26 (90%).
conclusionsIn this review we found that the adherence of studies to some of the Dutch guidelines for pharmacoeconomic studies is fair. However, major improvements are required with respect to the adoption of the societal perspective, presentation of adequate subgroup analyses and application of reference prices.
Indexed as
Identifiers
16341742What 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.