Delays in publication of cost utility analyses conducted alongside clinical trials: registry analysis

Greenberg, Dan; Rosen, Allison B.; Olchanski, Natalia; Stone, Patricia W.; Nadai, John; Neumann, Peter J.

doi:10.1136/bmj.38079.502326.ae

Cited by 18 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Such costeffectiveness studies appear in medical literature some time after the clinical trials findings are known, usually 2 years later [67]. During this period, HRQL studies are carried out incorporating both conventional measures of effectiveness and cost-related data.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Measuring health-related quality of life in drug clinical trials: is it given due importance?

Miguel¹,

López-González

Iriso

et al. 2007

Pharm World Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

HRQL measures are not used on a regular basis in drug clinical trials that are reported in the relevant literature. Systematic incorporation of QOL measures into clinical trials would make it possible to measure the benefit obtained from drug treatments taking into account the patients' perceptions. Moreover, it would encourage the development of prospective cost-effectiveness studies with patient recorded data in the context of clinical trials. Our findings have a direct impact on practice. Being conscious of the low use of HRQL in clinical trials, it could contribute to increase the demand for these measures by health care professionals. The manuscript is also a useful tool to identify where basic concepts about HRQL measures can be found.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Measuring health-related quality of life in drug clinical trials: is it given due importance?

Miguel¹,

López-González

Iriso

et al. 2007

Pharm World Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We conducted a systematic literature search of Medline, Health-STAR, CancerLit, Current Contents Connect (all editions), and EconLit databases for all original cost effectiveness analyses published in English between 1976 and 2001 that expressed health outcomes in QALYs 10 – 13. Cost effectiveness analyses are reported as dollars per QALY 1.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Bias in published cost effectiveness studies: systematic review

Bell

Urbach

Ray

et al. 2006

BMJ

Self Cite

329

224

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective To investigate if published studies tend to report favourable cost effectiveness ratios (below $20 000, $50 000, and $100 000 per quality adjusted life year (QALY) gained) and evaluate study characteristics associated with this phenomenon. Design Systematic review. Studies reviewed 494 English language studies measuring health effects in QALYs published up to December 2001 identified using Medline, HealthSTAR, CancerLit, Current Content, and EconLit databases. Main outcome measures Incremental cost effectiveness ratios measured in dollars set to the year of publication. Results Approximately half the reported incremental cost effectiveness ratios (712 of 1433) were below $20 000/QALY. Studies funded by industry were more likely to report cost effectiveness ratios below $20 000/QALY (adjusted odds ratio 2.1, 95% confidence interval 1.3 to 3.3), $50 000/QALY (3.2, 1.8 to 5.7), and $100 000/QALY (3.3, 1.6 to 6.8). Studies of higher methodological quality (adjusted odds ratio 0.58, 0.37 to 0.91) and those conducted in Europe (0.59, 0.33 to 1.1) and the United States (0.44, 0.26 to 0.76) rather than elsewhere were less likely to report ratios below $20 000/QALY. Conclusion Most published analyses report favourable incremental cost effectiveness ratios. Studies funded by industry were more likely to report ratios below the three thresholds. Studies of higher methodological quality and those conducted in Europe and the US rather than elsewhere were less likely to report ratios below $20 000/QALY.

show abstract

“…One reason may be that economic evaluations can be time-consuming to construct, because they typically involve trial data modelled over time and across populations, and data obtained from external sources 6 . Additionally, given that most readers of clinical journals are physicians, not economists or policymakers, manuscripts presenting important clinical findings are often reviewed and published in an expedited fashion 6 . Much less is known about the publication timeliness of cancer-related ceas, which have not generally been pre-planned and conducted alongside clinical trials.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Comparing icers between abstracts and publications, the mean absolute difference was 23.8%; 50% of studies had a change in icer exceeding 10%. and conducted alongside clinical trials 6 . The reasons for such delays in publication are not clearly understood.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Publication Patterns of Cancer Cost-Effectiveness Studies Presented at Major Conferences

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Delays in publication of cost utility analyses conducted alongside clinical trials: registry analysis

Cited by 18 publications

References 2 publications

Measuring health-related quality of life in drug clinical trials: is it given due importance?

Measuring health-related quality of life in drug clinical trials: is it given due importance?

Bias in published cost effectiveness studies: systematic review

Publication Patterns of Cancer Cost-Effectiveness Studies Presented at Major Conferences

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About