Cost–effectiveness analyses of diagnostic strategies: a literature survey using the NHS Economic Evaluation Database

References

• Feinstein AR. Misguided efforts and future challenges for research on ‘diagnostic tests’. J. Epidemiol. Community Health 56, 330–332 (2002).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tatsioni A, Zarin DA, Aronson N et al. Challenges in systematic reviews of diagnostic technologies. Ann. Intern. Med. 142, 1048–1055 (2005).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fryback DG, Thornbury JR. The efficacy of diagnostic imaging. Med. Decis. Making 11, 88–94 (1991).
   Google Scholar
• Nixon J, Stoykova B, Christie J, Glanville J, Kleijnen J, Drummond M. NHS economic evaluation database for healthcare decision makers. Br. Med. J. 321, 32 (2000).
   Google Scholar
• Nixon J, Stoykova B, Glanville J, Christie J, Drummond M, Kleijnen J. The UK NHS economic evaluation database. Economic issues in evaluations of health technology. Int. J. Technol. Assess. Healthcare 16, 731–742 (2000).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pignone M, Saha S, Hoerger T, Lohr KN, Teutsch S, Mandelblatt J. Challenges in systematic reviews of economic analyses. Ann. Intern. Med. 142, 1073–1079 (2005).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Buxton MJ, Drummond MF, Van Hout BA et al. Modelling in economic evaluation, an unavoidable fact of life. Health Econ. 6, 217–227 (1997).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kuntz KM, Weinstein MC. Modelling in economic evaluation. In: Economic Evaluation in Healthcare, Merging Theory with Practice. Drummond MF, McGuire A (Eds). Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK (2001).
   Google Scholar
• Byar DP. Why databases should not replace randomized clinical trials. Biometrics 36, 337–342 (1980).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oostenbrink R, Oostenbrink JB, Moons KG et al. Cost–utility analysis of patient care in children with meningeal signs. Int. J. Technol. Assess. Healthcare 18, 485–496 (2002).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hunink MG, Krestin GP. Study design for concurrent development, assessment, and implementation of new diagnostic imaging technology. Radiology 222, 604–614 (2002).
   Google Scholar
• Reid MC, Lachs MS, Feinstein AR. Use of methodological standards in diagnostic test research. Getting better but still not good. JAMA 274, 645–651 (1995).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lijmer JG, Mol BW, Heisterkamp S et al. Empirical evidence of design-related bias in studies of diagnostic tests. JAMA 282, 1061–1066 (1999).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bossuyt PM, Reitsma JB, Bruns DE et al. Towards complete and accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy, the STARD initiative. Br. Med. J. 326, 41–44 (2003).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Whiting P, Rutjes AW, Reitsma JB, Bossuyt PM, Kleijnen J. The development of QUADAS, a tool for the quality assessment of studies of diagnostic accuracy included in systematic reviews. BMC Med. Res. Methodol. 3, 25 (2003).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Whiting P, Harbord R, Kleijnen J. No role for quality scores in systematic reviews of diagnostic accuracy studies. BMC Med. Res. Methodol. 5, 19 (2005).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Deville WL, Buntinx F, Bouter LM et al. Conducting systematic reviews of diagnostic studies, didactic guidelines. BMC Med. Res. Methodol. 2, 9 (2002).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Deeks JJ. Systematic reviews in healthcare. Systematic reviews of evaluations of diagnostic and screening tests. Br. Med. J. 323, 157–162 (2001).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reitsma JB, Glas AS, Rutjes AW, Scholten RJ, Bossuyt PM, Zwinderman AH. Bivariate analysis of sensitivity and specificity produces informative summary measures in diagnostic reviews. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 58, 982–990 (2005).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chiou CF, Hay JW, Wallace JF et al. Development and validation of a grading system for the quality of cost–effectiveness studies. Med. Care 41, 32–44 (2003).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gonzalez-Perez JG. Developing a scoring system to quality assess economic evaluations. Eur. J. Health Econ. 3, 131–136 (2002).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Nixon J, Ulmann P, Glanville J, Boulenger S, Drummond M, de Pouvourville G. The European Network of Health Economic Evaluation Databases (EURONHEED) Project. Eur. J. Health Econ. 5, 183–187 (2004).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• de Pouvourville G, Ulmann P, Nixon J, Boulenger S, Glanville J, Drummond M. The diffusion of health economics knowledge in Europe, The EURONHEED (European Network of Health Economics Evaluation Database) project. Pharmacoeconomics 23, 113–120 (2005).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nixon J, Duffy S, Armstrong N et al. The usefulness of the NHS Economic Evaluation Database to researchers undertaking technology assessment reviews. Int. J. Technol. Assess. Healthcare 20, 249–257 (2004).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hanley JA, McNeil BJ. The meaning and use of the area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. Radiology 143, 29–36 (1982).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Briggs AH. Handling uncertainty in cost–effectiveness models. Pharmacoeconomics 17, 479–500 (2000).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Paterson DI, Schwartzman K. Strategies incorporating spiral CT for the diagnosis of acute pulmonary embolism, a cost–effectiveness analysis. Chest 119, 1791–1800 (2001).
   Google Scholar
• Perrier A, Nendaz MR, Sarasin FP, Howarth N, Bounameaux H. Cost–effectiveness analysis of diagnostic strategies for suspected pulmonary embolism including helical computed tomography. Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med. 167, 39–44 (2003).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Hout BA, Al MJ, Gordon GS, Rutten FF. Costs, effects and C/E-ratios alongside a clinical trial. Health Econ. 3, 309–319 (1994).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Briggs AH, Goeree R, Blackhouse G, O’Brien BJ. Probabilistic analysis of cost–effectiveness models, choosing between treatment strategies for gastroesophageal reflux disease. Med. Decis. Making 22, 290–308 (2002).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar