Linking pharmacoeconomic analyses to results of systematic review and meta-analysis

References

• Bootman JL, Townsend RJ, McGhan WE Principles of Phalmacoeconomics.W Harvey Whitney Books Company, Cincinnati, OH, USA (1991).
   Google Scholar
• Drummond M. Guidelines for pharmacoeconomics studies. The way forward. PhatmacoEconomics6, 493–497 (1994).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mauskopf H. Why study pharmacoeconomics? Expert Rev Pharmacoeconomics Outcomes Res.1(1), 1–3 (2001).
   Google Scholar
• Lafata JE, Koch GG, Ward RE. Synthesizing evidence from multiple studies. Med. Care (Suppl) 34(12), D5136—DS145 (1996).
   Google Scholar
• •Suggests a model for incorporating meta-analyses into pharmacoeconomic analyses.
   Google Scholar
• Balk EM, Zucker DR, Engels EA, Wong JB, Williams JW, Lau J. Strategies for diagnosing and treating acute bacterial sinusitis: a cost-effectiveness analysis. J. Gen. Intern. Mer1.16, 701–711 (2001).
   Google Scholar
• Hill S, Mitchell A, Henry D. Problems with the interpretation of pharmacoeconomic analyses: a review of submissions to the Australian Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. JAIVIA 283(16), 2116–2121 (2000).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Moriguchi H, Uemura T, Kobayashi M, Chung Kr, Sato C. Management strategies using pharmacogenomics in patients with severe HCV-lb infection: a decision analysis. kipatology36(1), 177–185 (2003).
   Google Scholar
• Smith ML, Glass GV. Meta-analysis of psychotherapy outcome studies. American Psychologist 32,752-760 (1977). In: Practical Meta-analysis. Sage Publications. Lipsey MW, Wilson DB (Eds). Thousand Oaks, CA, USA (2001).
   Google Scholar
• Petitti DB. Meta-analysis, Decision Analysis and Cost-Effectiveness Analysis. Methods for quantitative Synthesis in Medicine. Oxford University Press, NY, USA (2000).
   Google Scholar
• •General reference.
   Google Scholar
• Sanchez L. Applied pharmacoeconomics. Am. J. Health System Pharmacy56(12), 1630–1638 (1999).
   Google Scholar
• Lau J, Ioannidis JPA, Schmid CH. Quantitative synthesis in systematic reviews. Ann. Intern. Med. 127,820–826 (1997).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clarke MJ, Stewart LA. Principles of and procedures for systematic reviews. In: Systematic Reviews in Healthcare: Meta-analysis in Context. Egger M, Smith G, Altman D (Eds). BMJ Publishing Group, London, UK, 23–41 (2001).
   Google Scholar
• •Contains a series of papers on key topics of interest in meta-analysis.
   Google Scholar
• Counsell C. Formulating questions and locating primary studies for inclusion in systematic reviews. Ann. Intern Med 127, 380–387 (1997).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vickers A, Goya]. N, Harland R, Rees R. Do certain countries produce only positive results? A systematic review of controlled trials. Controlled Clin. Trials 19,159–166 (1998).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Lau J, Ioannidis JPA, Schmid CH. Summing up evidence: one answer is not always enough. Lancet351, 123–127 (1998).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• •Discusses heterogeneity and its implications for methods of combining data and interpreting meta-analysis results.
   Google Scholar
• Ioannidis JPA, Haidich AB, Pappa M etal. Comparisons between randomized and nonrandomized evidence. JAMA 286, 821–830 (2001).
   Google Scholar
• Moher D, Jadad AR, Nichol G etal Assessing the quality of randomized controlled trials: an annotated bibliography of scales and checklists. Controlled Clin. Trials 16,62–73 (1995).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Meade MO, Richardson WS. Selecting and appraising studies for a systematic review. Ann. Intern. Med. 127,531–537 (1997).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Juni P, Witschi A, Bloch R, Egger M. The hazards of scoring the quality of clinical trials for meta-analysis. JAIVIA. 282,1054–1060 (1999).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schulz K, Chalmers I, Hayes R, Altman D. Empirical evidence of bias: dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials. JAIVIA 273(5), 408–412 (1995).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Balk EM, Bonis PO, Moscowitz HSCH, Ioannidis JP, Wang C, Lau J. Correlation of quality measures with estimates of treatment effect in meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials. JAIVIA 287(22), 2973–2982 (2002).
   Google Scholar
• Laird NM, Mosteller E Some statistical methods for combining experimental results. Int. J. Tech. Assess. Health. Care 6, 5–30 (1990).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Lau J, Ioannidis JPA, Schmid CH. Quantitative synthesis in systematic reviews. Ann. Intern. Med 127, 820–826 (1997).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Normand ST Meta-analysis: formulating, evaluating, combining and reporting. Stat. Med. 18, 321–359 (1999).
   Google Scholar
• •Comprehensive survey of statistical methods for meta-analysis.
   Google Scholar
• Engels EA, Schmid CH, Terrin N, Olkin I, Lau J. Heterogeneity and statistical significant in meta-analysis: an empirical study of 125 meta-analyses. Stat. Med. 19, 1707–1728 (2000).
   Google Scholar
• Dersimonian R, Laird N. Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Controlled Clin. Trials 7, 177–188 (1986).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Schmid CH. Using Bayesian inference to perform meta-analysis. Evaluation Health Pmfessions24, 165–189 (2001).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schmid CH, Whiting G, Cory D, Ross S, Chalmers TC. Omeprazole plus antibiotics in the eradication of Helicobacter pylori infection: a meta-regression analysis of randomized, controlled trials. Am. J. Therapeutics 6,25–36 (1999).
   Google Scholar
• Furukawa TA, Streiner DL, Hon i S. Discrepancies among megatrials. j Clin. Epidemiol 53, 1193–1199 (2000).
   Google Scholar
• Schmid CH. Exploring heterogeneity in randomized trials via meta-analysis. Drug Information J. 33, 211–224 (1999).
   Google Scholar
• Berkey CS, Hoaglin DC, Mosteller F, Colditz GA. A random-effects regression model for meta-analysis. Stat. Med. 14, 395–411 (1995).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Houwelingen HC, Arends LR, Stipnen T Advanced methods in meta-analysis, multivariate approach and meta-regression. Stat. Med. 21, 589–624 (2002).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clarke MJ, Stewart LA. Obtaining individual patient data from randomized controlled studies. In: Systematic Reviews in lialthcate: Meta-analysis in Context. Fgger M, Smith G, Altman D (Eds). BMJ Publishing Group, London, UK 109–121 (2001).
   Google Scholar
• Anderson S, Auquier A, Hauck WW, Oakes D, Vandaele W, Weisberg H. Statistical Methods for Comparative Studies. John Wiley and Sons, NY, USA 125 (1980).
   Google Scholar
• Ioannidis JF'. Effect of the statistical significance of results on the time to completion and publication of randomized efficacy trials. JAIVIA 279(4), 281–286 (1998).
   Google Scholar
• Thornton A, Lee P Publication bias in meta- analysis: its causes and consequences. j Clin. Epidemiol 53, 207–216 (2000).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tang JL, Liu JL. Misleading funnel plot for detection of bias in meta-analysis. J. Clin. Epidemiol 53(5), 477–484 (2000).
   Google Scholar
• Ioannidis JPA, Lau J. Reporting of the safety of medications in randomized trials is neglected: an evaluation of 7 medical areas. JA /1//A 285, 437–443 (2001).
   Google Scholar
• de Ferranti SD, Ioannidis JPA, Lau J, Anninger WV Barza M. Are amoxicillin and filate inhibitors as effective as other antibiotics for acute sinusitis? A meta-analysis. Brit. Med. J. 317,632–637 (1998).
   Google Scholar
• Engels E, Barza M, Terrin N, Lau J. Meta- analysis of diagnostic tests for acute sinusitis. J. 43iderniol. 53, 852–862 (2000).
   Google Scholar
• Bennett WG, Inoue Y, Beck RJ, Wong JB, Pauker SG, Davis GL. Estimates of the cost-effectiveness of a single course of interferon-alpha2b in patients with histologically mild chronic hepatitis B. Ann. Inter Med. 127(10), 855–865 (1997).
   Google Scholar
• Drummond R, Luft H. Pharmacoeconomic analyses: making them transparent, making them credible. JAMA 283 (18), 2158–2160 (2000).
   Google Scholar
• Kassirer JP, Angell M. The Journal's policy on cost-effectiveness analysis. New Engl. J. Med. 331, 669–670 (1994).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mulrow CD. The medical review article. Ann. Intern. Med. 106, 485–488 (1987).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar