Methodological developments in randomized controlled trial-based economic evaluations

References

• Drummond M, Sculpher M, Torrance GW, et al. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programs. 3rd edition. Oxford University Press; Oxford, London, UK: 2005
   Google Scholar
• Dakin H, Devlin N, Feng Y, et al. The influence of cost-effectiveness and other factors on NICE decisions. CHE Research Paper 93, 2013. Available from: www.york.ac.uk/media/che/documents/papers/researchpapers/CHERP93_cost-effectiveness_NICE_decisions.pdf [Last accessed 13 January 2014]
   Google Scholar
• Sculpher MJ, Claxton K, Drummond M, McCabe C. Whither trial based economic evaluation for health care decision making? Health Econ 2006;15(7):677-87
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ramsey S, Willke R, Briggs A, et al. Good research practices for cost effectiveness analysis alongside clinical trials: The ISPOR RCT CEA Task Force Report. Value Health 2005;8(5):521-33
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Petrou S, Gray A. Economic evaluation alongside randomised controlled trials: design, conduct, analysis, and reporting. Br Med J 2011;342
   Google Scholar
• Smith CT, Hickey H, Clarke M, et al. The trials methodological research agenda: results from a priority setting exercise. Trials 2014;15(1):32
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Mihaylova B, Briggs A, O’Hagan A, Thompson SG. Review of statistical methods for analysing healthcare resources and costs. Health Econ 2011;20(8):897-916
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grutters JP, Seferina SC, Tjan-Heijnen VC, et al. Bridging trial and decision: a checklist to frame health technology assessments for resource allocation decisions. Value Health 2011;14(5):777-84
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tudor Edwards R, Charles JM, Lloyd-Williams H. Public health economics: a systematic review of guidance for the economic evaluation of public health interventions and discussion of key methodological issues. BMC Public Health 2013;13(1):1001
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Walker DG, Wilson RF, Sharma R, et al. Best practices for conducting economic evaluations in health care: a systematic review of quality assessment tools. Methods Research Reports 2012; AHRQ Publication No. 12(13)-EHC132-EF Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; Rockville, MD, USA: 2012
   Google Scholar
• Dakin H, Wordsworth S. Cost minimisation analysis versus cost effectiveness analysis, revisited. Health Econ 2013;22(1):22-34
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hollingworth W, McKell-Redwood D, Hampson L, Metcalfe C. Cost–utility analysis conducted alongside randomized controlled trials: are economic end points considered in sample size calculations and does it matter? Clin Trials 2013;10(1):43-53
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Willan AR. Sample size determination for cost-effectiveness trials. Pharmacoeconomics 2011;29(11):933-49
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sarker SJ, Whitehead A, Khan I. A C++ program to calculate sample sizes for cost-effectiveness trials in a Bayesian framework. Comput Methods Programs Biomed 2013;110(3):471-89
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boyd KA, Briggs AH, Fenwick E, et al. Power and sample size for cost-effectiveness analysis: fFN neonatal screening. Contemp Clin Trials 2011;32(6):893-901
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Manju M, Candel MJ, Berger MP. Sample size calculation in cost effectiveness cluster randomized trials: optimal and maximin approaches. Stat Med 2014;33(15):2538-53
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grutters JP, Sculpher M, Briggs AH, et al. Acknowledging patient heterogeneity in economic evaluation. Pharmacoeconomics 2013;31(2):111-23
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ramaekers BL, Joore MA, Grutters JP. How should we deal with patient heterogeneity in economic evaluation: a systematic review of National Pharmacoeconomic Guidelines. Value Health 2013;16(5):855-62
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ridyard CH, Hughes DA. Methods for the collection of resource use data within clinical trials: a systematic review of studies funded by the UK health technology assessment program. Value Health 2010;13(8):867-72
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ridyard CH, Hughes DA. Development of a database of instruments for resource-use measurement: purpose, feasibility, and design. Value Health 2012;15(5):650-5
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• DIRUM. Available from: www.dirum.org
   Google Scholar
• Thorn JC, Coast J, Cohen D, et al. Resource-use measurement based on patient recall: issues and challenges for economic evaluation. Appl Health Econ Health Policy 2013;11(3):155-61
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Ridyard CH, Hughes DA. Taxonomy for methods of resource use measurement. Health Econ 2014. [Epub ahead of print]
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Seidl H, Meisinger C, Wende R, Holle R. Empirical analysis shows reduced cost data collection may be an efficient method in economic clinical trials. BMC Health Serv Res 2012;12(1):318
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hendriks MR, Al MJ, Bleijlevens MH, et al. Continuous versus intermittent data collection of health care utilization. Med Decis Making 2013;33(8):998-1008
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Palmer L, Johnston SS, Rousculp MD, et al. Agreement between internet-based self-and proxy-reported health care resource utilization and administrative health care claims. Value Health 2012;15(3):458-65
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Noble SM, Hollingworth W, Tilling K. Missing data in trial based cost effectiveness analysis: the current state of play. Health Econ 2012;21(2):187-200
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marques E, Johnson EC, Gooberman-Hill R, et al. Using resource use logs to reduce the amount of missing data in economic evaluations alongside trials. Value Health 2013;16(1):195-201
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Krol M, Brouwer W. How to estimate productivity costs in economic evaluations. Pharmacoeconomics 2014;32(4):335-44
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Krol M, Brouwer WB, Severens JL, et al. Productivity cost calculations in health economic evaluations: correcting for compensation mechanisms and multiplier effects. Soc Sci Med 2012;75(11):1981-8
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shiroiwa T, Fukuda T, Ikeda S, Shimozuma K. QALY and productivity loss: empirical evidence for “double counting”. Soc Sci Med 2013;16(4):581-7
   Google Scholar
• Kigozi J, Lewis M, Jowett S, et al. Construct validity and responsiveness of the single-item presenteeism question in patients with lower-back pain for the measurement of presenteeism. Spine 2013;39(5):409-16
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Krol M, Stolk E, Brouwer W. Predicting productivity based on EQ-5D: an explorative study. Eur J Health Econ 2013;15(5):465-75
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hoefman RJ, van Exel J, Brouwer W. How to Include Informal Care in Economic Evaluations. Pharmacoeconomics 2013;31(12):1105-19
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Geue C, Lewsey J, Lorgelly P, et al. Spoilt for choice: implications of using alternative methods of costing hospital episode statistics. Health Econ 2012;21(10):1201-16
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hughes DA, Tilson L, Drummond M. Estimating drug costs in economic evaluations in Ireland and the UK. Pharmacoeconomics 2009;27(8):635-43
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hay JW, Smeeding J, Carroll NV, et al. Good research practices for measuring drug costs in cost effectiveness analyses: issues and recommendations: the ISPOR Drug Cost Task Force Report—Part I. Value Health 2010;13(1):3-7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• NICE. Guide to the methods of technology appraisal 2008. Available from: www.nice.org.uk/media/B52/A7/TAMethodsGuideUpdatedJune2008.pdf [Last accessed 6 June 2014]
   Google Scholar
• Herdman M, Gudex C, Lloyd A, et al. Development and preliminary testing of the new five-level version of EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L). Qual Life Res 2011;20(10):1727-36
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Whynes D, McCahon R, Ravenscroft A, et al. Responsiveness of the EQ-5D health-related quality-of-life instrument in assessing low back pain. Value Health 2013;16(1):124-32
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mulhern B, Bansback N, Brazier J, et al. Preparatory study for the revaluation of the EQ-5D tariff: methodology report. Health Technol Assess 2014;18(12)
   Google Scholar
• van Hout B, Janssen M, Feng YS, et al. Interim scoring for the EQ-5D-5L: mapping the EQ-5D-5L to EQ-5D-3L value sets. Value Health 2012;15(5):708-15
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ferreira LN, Ferreira PL, Pereira LN, et al. Exploring the Consistency of the SF-6D. Value Health 2013;16(6):1023-31
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Joore M, Brunenberg D, Nelemans P, et al. The impact of differences in EQ 5D and SF 6D utility scores on the acceptability of cost–utility ratios: results across five trial based cost–utility studies. Value Health 2010;13(2):222-9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Whitehurst DG, Bryan S. Another study showing that two preference-based measures of health-related quality of life (EQ-5D and SF-6D) are not interchangeable. But why should we expect them to be? Value Health 2011;14(4):531-8
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Swinburn P, Lloyd A, Boye K, et al. Development of a disease-specific version of the EQ-5D-5L for use in patients suffering from psoriasis: lessons learned from a feasibility study in the UK. Value Health 2013;16(8):1156-62
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yang Y, Brazier J, Tsuchiya A. Effect of adding a sleep dimension to the EQ-5D descriptive system a “bolt-on” experiment. Med Decis Making 2014;34(1):42-53
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rowen D, Brazier J, Young T, et al. Deriving a preference-based measure for cancer using the EORTC QLQ-C30. Value Health 2011;14(5):721-31
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rowen D, Young T, Brazier J, Gaugris S. Comparison of generic, condition-specific, and mapped health state utility values for multiple myeloma cancer. Value Health 2012;15(8):1059-68
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brazier J, Rowen D, Mavranezouli I, et al. Developing and testing methods for deriving preference-based measures of health from condition-specific measures (and other patient-based measures of outcome). Health Technol Assess 2012;16(32):1-114
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Versteegh MM, Leunis A, Uyl-de Groot CA, Stolk EA. Condition-specific preference-based measures: benefit or burden? Value Health 2012;15(3):504-13
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Longworth L, Rowen D. Mapping to obtain EQ-5D utility values for use in NICE health technology assessments. Value Health 2013;16(1):202-10
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lu G, Brazier J, Ades A. Mapping from disease-specific to generic health-related quality-of-life scales: a common factor model. Value Health 2013;16(1):177-84
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fayers PM, Hays RD. Should linking replace regression when mapping from profile-based measures to preference-based measures? Value Health 2014;17(2):261-5
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ades A, Lu G, Madan JJ. Which health-related quality-of-life outcome when planning randomized trials: disease-specific or generic, or both? A common factor model. Value Health 2013;16(1):185-94
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dakin H. Review of studies mapping from quality of life or clinical measures to EQ-5D: an online database. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2013;11(1):151
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Mukuria C, Brazier J. Valuing the EQ-5D and the SF-6D health states using subjective well-being: a secondary analysis of patient data. Soc Sci Med 2013;77:97-105
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Al-Janabi H, Flynn TN, Coast J. Development of a self-report measure of capability wellbeing for adults: the ICECAP-A. Qual Life Res 2012;21(1):167-76
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Flynn TN, Huynh E, Peters TJ, et al. Scoring the ICECAP A capability instrument. Estimation of a UK general population tariff. Health Econ 2013. [ Epub ahead of print]
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Al-Janabi H, Peters TJ, Brazier J, et al. An investigation of the construct validity of the ICECAP-A capability measure. Qual Life Res 2013;22(7):1831-40
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Simon J, Anand P, Gray A, et al. Operationalising the capability approach for outcome measurement in mental health research. Soc Sci Med 2013;98:187-96
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sutton EJ, Coast J. Development of a supportive care measure for economic evaluation of end-of-life care using qualitative methods. Palliative Med 2014;28(2):151-7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Flynn TN, Chan P, Coast J, Peters TJ. Assessing quality of life among British older people using the ICEPOP CAPability (ICECAP-O) measure. Appl Health Econ Health Policy 2011;9(5):317-29
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Davis JC, Liu-Ambrose T, Richardson CG, Bryan S. A comparison of the ICECAP-O with EQ-5D in a falls prevention clinical setting: are they complements or substitutes? Qual Life Res 2013;22(5):969-77
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Makai P, Brouwer WB, Koopmanschap MA, et al. Quality of life instruments for economic evaluations in health and social care for older people: a systematic review. Soc Sci Med 2014;102:83-93
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arons AM, Krabbe PF, Schölzel-Dorenbos CJ, et al. Quality of life in dementia: a study on proxy bias. BMC Med Res Methodol 2013;13(1):110
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stevens K. Valuation of the child health utility 9D index. Pharmacoeconomics 2012;30(8):729-47
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ravens-Sieberer U, Wille N, Badia X, et al. Feasibility, reliability, and validity of the EQ-5D-Y: results from a multinational study. Qual Life Res 2010;19(6):887-97
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wu X, Ohinmaa A, Johnson J, Veugelers P. Assessment of children’s own health status using visual analogue scale and descriptive system of the EQ-5D-Y: linkage between two systems. Qual Life Res 2014;23(2):393-402
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beusterien KM, Yeung JE, Pang F, Brazier J. Development of the multi-attribute Adolescent Health Utility Measure (AHUM). Health Qual Life Outcomes 2012;10:102
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Garbarski D. Comparing self and maternal reports of adolescents’ general health status: do self and proxy reports differ in their relationships with covariates? Qual Life Res 2014. [ Epub ahead of print]
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kulpeng W, Sornsrivichai V, Chongsuvivatwong V, et al. Variation of health-related quality of life assessed by caregivers and patients affected by severe childhood infections. BMC Pediatr 2013;13:122
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Al-Janabi H, Flynn TN, Coast J. Estimation of a preference-based carer experience scale. Med Decis Making 2011;31(3):458-68
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hoefman RJ, van Exel J, Rose JM, et al. A discrete choice experiment to obtain a tariff for valuing informal care situations measured with the CarerQol instrument. Med Decis Making 2014;34(1):84-96
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rivero Arias O, Gray A. The multinational nature of cost effectiveness analyses alongside multinational clinical trials. Value Health 2010;13(1):34-41
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Husereau D, Drummond M, Petrou S, et al. Consolidated health economic evaluation reporting standards (CHEERS) – explanation and elaboration: a report of the ispor health economic evaluation publication guidelines good reporting practices task force. Value Health 2013;16(2):231-50
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thorn JC, Noble SM, Hollingworth W. Timely and complete publication of economic evaluations alongside randomized controlled trials. Pharmacoeconomics 2013;31(1):77-85
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• ISPOR. Cost-effectiveness analysis alongside clinical trials - good research practices II task force 2014. Available from: www.ispor.org/TaskForces/Cost_Effectiveness_Analysis_Clinical_TrialsGRPIITF.asp [Last accessed 30 May 2014]
   Google Scholar