The Quality of Reporting in Published Cost-Utility Analyses, 1976–1997

Neumann, Peter J.; Stone, Patricia W.; Chapman, Richard H.; Sandberg, Eileen A.; Bell, Chaim M.

doi:10.7326/0003-4819-132-12-200006200-00007

Cited by 184 publications

(119 citation statements)

References 37 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

108

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Costs were converted to a common currency and year (2006 Canadian dollars), accounting for currency conversion and inflation adjustment (5-7). Study quality was independently assessed by two reviewers (SWK, MH) using an adapted checklist (8). It was anticipated a priori that a small number of articles would be identified.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Identification of factors driving differences in cost effectiveness of first-line pharmacological therapy for uncomplicated hypertension

Klarenbach¹,

McAlister²,

Johansen

et al. 2010

Canadian Journal of Cardiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Identification of factors driving differences in cost effectiveness of first-line pharmacological therapy for uncomplicated hypertension

Klarenbach¹,

McAlister²,

Johansen

et al. 2010

Canadian Journal of Cardiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Study characteristics and outcome data were extracted by one reviewer and checked independently by a second. Study quality was assessed using Jadad scores 14 for clinical studies (2 points for an adequate randomization method, 2 points for an adequate double-blinding method, 1 point for adequately describing withdrawals, for a maximum of 5 points) and a checklist adapted from Neumann et al 15 for economic studies. Full details regarding individual study quality and quantitative meta-analysis can be found in the full CADTH report 13 .…”

Section: Data Extractionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Bariatric Surgery: A Systematic Review of the Clinical and Economic Evidence

et al. 2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…12 Each of the 16 items in this instrument were accorded 1 point if present, and a total quality score was obtained by summing across the items. Thus, the scale varied from 0 to 16, with higher values indicating better quality.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The cost-effectiveness of drug-eluting stents: a systematic review

Ligthart¹,

Vlemmix²,

Dendukuri³

et al. 2007

Canadian Medical Association Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

D rug-eluting stents became commercially available in 2002 in Europe and Canada and in 2003 in the United States 1 and are now widely used in the treatment of coronary artery disease. Restenosis of the target lesion has been the "Achilles heel" of percutaneous coronary interventions (PCIs), with 15%-40% of patients in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) who received bare-metal stents needing repeat revascularization within 6 months. 2 Numerous RCTs 3-6 and meta-analyses 7 have shown that the use of drug-eluting stents reduces this risk by an estimated 83%. Given their comparable short-term safety profiles, drugeluting stents have been seen as an attractive clinical alternative to bare-metal stents. However, no differences in deaths or myocardial infarctions have been seen between study groups receiving either type of stent. 7 Furthermore, the absolute reductions in the rate of repeat revascularization observed with drug-eluting stents may be overestimated, owing to protocoldriven angiographic follow-up in RCTs. 8,9 Nevertheless, the clinical benefits of fewer repeat revascularizations with drugeluting stents and improved quality of life, even if ephemeral, are enticing.Because drug-eluting stents are considerably more expensive than bare-metal stents, with an estimated world market of $6 billion annually, 10 cost-effectiveness analyses may help decision-makers assess the value of this additional investment. Although many cost-effectiveness studies have been carried out, they have arrived at different conclusions despite using a relatively constant measure of the efficacy of drugeluting stents. By systematically reviewing all published costeffectiveness analyses, we attempt to understand the determinants of the different conclusions. MethodsWe performed an extensive literature search for all Englishlanguage cost-effectiveness studies published between Jan. 1, 2000, and July 31, 2006, that assessed the impact of costs of drug-eluting stents compared with bare-metal stents on a health care system. We decided not to distinguish between the different models of drug-eluting stents because, although sirolimus-eluting stents appear to be more clinically effective than paclitaxel-eluting ones, 11 both are extensively used in clinical practice and because the prices of drug-eluting stents

show abstract

The Quality of Reporting in Published Cost-Utility Analyses, 1976–1997

Cited by 184 publications

References 37 publications

Identification of factors driving differences in cost effectiveness of first-line pharmacological therapy for uncomplicated hypertension

Identification of factors driving differences in cost effectiveness of first-line pharmacological therapy for uncomplicated hypertension

Bariatric Surgery: A Systematic Review of the Clinical and Economic Evidence

The cost-effectiveness of drug-eluting stents: a systematic review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About