Advanced search
Publication Cover
Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research Volume 14, 2014 - Issue 1
Submit an article Journal homepage
31
Views
3
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Special Report

Welfare gains and losses caused by clinical practice guidelines

Afschin GandjourFrankfurt School of Finance & Management, Frankfurt, GermanyCorrespondence[email protected]
Pages 27-33 | Published online: 16 Dec 2013

References

  • Clinical Practice Guidelines We Can Trust. Graham R, Mancher M, Miller DW, Greenfield S, Earl Steinberg (Eds). Institute of Medicine., Committee on Standards for Developing Trustworthy Clinical Practice Guidelines, Board on Health Care Services. National Academy Press, Washington, DC, USA (2011).
  • The Appraisal of Guidelines, Research and Evaluation in Europe (AGREE) Collaborative Group. Guideline development in Europe. Int. J. Technol. Assess. Health Care 16(4), 1039–1049 (2000).
  • Eccles M, Mason J. How to develop cost-conscious guidelines. Health Technol. Assess. 5(16), 1–69 (2001).
  • Ramsey SD. Incorporating economic analysis into clinical practice guidelines: a guide for hopeful users. Evid. Based Med. 7, 164–166 (2002).
  • Wailoo A, Roberts J, Brazier J, McCabe C. Efficiency, equity, and NICE clinical guidelines. BMJ 328(7439), 536–537 (2004).
  • Edejer TT. Improving the use of research evidence in guideline development: 11. Incorporating considerations of cost-effectiveness, affordability and resource implications. Health Res. Policy Syst. 4, 23 (2006).
  • Brunetti M, Shemilt I, Pregno S, Vale L et al. GRADE guidelines: 10. Considering resource use and rating the quality of economic evidence. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 66(2), 140–150 (2013).
  • Hoppe JD. Wir sind auf dem Weg in die Zuteilungsmedizin. Dtsch Arztebl. 102(31–32), A–2137 (2005).
  • Neumann PJ, Weinstein MC. Legislating against use of cost-effectiveness information. N. Engl. J. Med. 363(16), 1495–1497 (2010).
  • Braveman P, Gruskin S. Defining equity in health. J. Epidemiol. Community Health 57(4): 254–258 (2003).
  • Thompson DF. Understanding financial conflicts of interest. N. Engl. J. Med. 329(8), 573–576 (1993).
  • Encyclopedia of Public Health (2nd Volume). Kirch W (Ed.). Springer, NY, USA (2008).
  • Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Recommended immunization schedules for persons aged 0 through 18 years - United States, 2012. MMWR Morb. Mortal Wkly Rep. 61(5), 1–4 (2012).
  • Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Recommended adult immunization schedule--United States, 2011. MMWR Morb. Mortal Wkly Rep. 60(4), 1–4 (2011).
  • DGBS e.V. und DGPPN e.V. S3-Leitlinie zur Diagnostik und Therapie Bipolarer Störungen. Langversion. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Germany (2012).
  • Barnett PG. An improved set of standards for finding cost for cost-effectiveness analysis. Med. Care 47(7 Suppl. 1), S82–S88 (2009).
  • Sendi P, Gafni A, Birch S. Opportunity costs and uncertainty in the economic evaluation of health care interventions. Health Econ. 11(1), 23–31 (2002).
  • Drummond MF, Sculpher MJ, Torrance GW, O’Brien BJ, Stoddart GL. Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes (3rd Edition). Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK (2005).
  • Schwappach DL. Resource allocation, social values and the QALY: a review of the debate and empirical evidence. Health Expect. 5(3), 210–222 (2002).
  • Gyrd-Hansen D. Investigating the social value of health changes. J. Health Econ. 23(6), 1101–1116 (2004).
  • Dolan P, Shaw R, Tsuchiya A, Williams A. QALY maximisation and people's preferences: a methodological review of the literature. Health Econ. 14(2), 197–208 (2005).
  • Jacobsson F, Carstensen J, Borgquist L. Caring externalities in health economic evaluation: how are they related to severity of illness? Health Policy 73(2), 172–82 (2005).
  • Shah KK. Severity of illness and priority setting in healthcare: a review of the literature. Health Policy 93(2–3), 77–84 (2009).
  • Sassi F, Le Grand J, Archard L. Equity versus efficiency: a dilemma for the NHS. If the NHS is serious about equity it must offer guidance when principles conflict. BMJ 323(7316), 762–763 (2001).
  • Briggs AH, O’Brien BJ. The death of cost-minimization analysis? Health Econ. 10(2), 179–84 (2001).
  • Webb DJ, Walker A. Value-based pricing of drugs in the UK. Lancet 369(9571), 1415–1416 (2007).
  • Mueller D, Gandjour A. Cost-effectiveness of using clinical risk factors with and without DXA for osteoporosis screening in postmenopausal women. Value Health 12(8), 1106–1117 (2009).
  • Gandjour A, Holler A, Adarkwah CC. Cost-effectiveness of implantable defibrillators after myocardial infarction based on 8-year follow-up data (MADIT II). Value Health 14(6): 812–817 (2011).
  • Bridges JF, Onukwugha E, Mullins CD. Healthcare rationing by proxy: cost-effectiveness analysis and the misuse of the $50,000 threshold in the US. Pharmacoeconomics 28(3), 175–184 (2010).
  • Gafni A, Birch S. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs): the silence of the lambda. Soc. Sci. Med. 62(9), 2091–2100 (2006).
  • Bleichrodt H, Diecidue E, Quiggin J. Equity weights in the allocation of health care: the rank-dependent QALY model. J. Health Econ. 23(1), 157–171 (2004).
  • Camidge R, Walker A, Oliver JJ, Nussey F, Maxwell S, Jodrell D, Webb DJ. Prognosis without treatment as a modifier in health economic assessments. BMJ 330(7504), 1382–1384 (2005).
  • Wailoo A, Tsuchiya A, McCabe C. Weighting must wait: incorporating equity concerns into cost-effectiveness analysis may take longer than expected. Pharmacoeconomics 27(12), 983–989 (2009).
  • Pearson SD. Cring and cost: the challenge for physician advocacy. Ann. Intern. Med. 133(2), 148–153 (2000).
  • Choudhry NK, Stelfox HT, Detsky AS. Relationships between authors of clinical practice guidelines and the pharmaceutical industry. JAMA 287(5), 612–617 (2002).
  • Mendelson TB, Meltzer M, Campbell EG, Caplan AL, Kirkpatrick JN. Conflicts of interest in cardiovascular clinical practice guidelines. Arch. Intern. Med. 171(6), 577–584 (2011).
  • Norris SL, Holmer HK, Ogden LA, Burda BU. Conflict of interest in clinical practice guideline development: a systematic review. PLoS ONE 6(10), e25153 (2011).

Reprints and Corporate Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

To request a reprint or corporate permissions for this article, please click on the relevant link below:

Order Reprints Request Corporate Permissions

Academic Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

Obtain permissions instantly via Rightslink by clicking on the button below:

Request Academic Permissions

If you are unable to obtain permissions via Rightslink, please complete and submit this Permissions form. For more information, please visit our Permissions help page.

Related research

People also read lists articles that other readers of this article have read.

Recommended articles lists articles that we recommend and is powered by our AI driven recommendation engine.

Cited by lists all citing articles based on Crossref citations.
Articles with the Crossref icon will open in a new tab.