ReviewThe European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care2007
Pharmacoeconomic studies in Italy: a critical review of the literature.
Review in The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Systematic Review of Health Economic Evaluation Studies Developed in Brazil from 1980 to 2013.Frontiers in public health · 2018Article
- Dutch guidelines for economic evaluation: 'from good to better' in theory but further away from pharmaceuticals in practice?Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To assess the state of pharmacoeconomics in Italy we reviewed all the original studies published by Italian authors in national and international journals from January 1994 to December 2003. We selected 70 articles and broadly assessed 92 economic evaluations (EEs) since some articles contained multiple analyses. We adopted common analysis criteria to allow methodological comparison of the studies. The variables investigated can be grouped into three categories: general methods, costs, and consequences. To further assess the quality of the EEs, we decided to rank them according to criteria of both clinical and economic good practice. Then, to complete our critical evaluation, we analysed whether sponsorship might have somehow affected the results. Our analysis seems to support the widespread scepticism of the Italian NHS decision-makers towards pharmacoeconomic studies, whose results seem to be biased by flawed methods and sponsors' interference with results.
Indexed as
Identifiers
17186206What 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.