Explanatory versus pragmatic trial-based economic evaluations: application to alternative therapies for burns

References

• Schwartz D, Lellouch J. Explanatory and pragmatic attitudes in therapeutic trials. J. Clin. Epidemiol.62(5), 499–505 (2009).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Karanicolas PJ, Montori VM, Deveraux PJ et al. A new “mechanistic–practical” framework for designing and interpreting randomized trials. J. Clin. Epidemiol.62, 479–484 (2009).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pantadosi S. Clinical Trials, A Methodologic Perspective (2nd Edition). John Wiley and Sons, NJ, USA (2006).
   Google Scholar
• Thorpe KE, Zwarenstein M, Oxman AD et al. A pragmatic–explanatory continuum indicator summary (PRECIS): a tool to help trial designers. J. Clin. Epidemiol.62, 464–475 (2009).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oxman AD, Lombard C, Treweek S et al. Why we will remain pragmatists: four problems with the impractical mechanistic framework and a better solution. J. Clin. Epidemiol.62, 485–488 (2009).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oxman AD, Lombard C, Treweek S et al. A pragmatic resolution. J. Clin. Epidemiol.62, 495–498 (2009).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Drummond MF, O’Brien B, Stoddart GL et al.Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Healthcare Programmes (3rd Edition). Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK (2002).
   Google Scholar
• Glick H, Doshi J, Sonnad S et al. Economic evaluation of clinical trials. In: Oxford Handbooks in Health Economic Evaluation. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK (2007).
   Google Scholar
• Armitage P. Attitudes in clinical trials. Stat. Med.17, 2675–2683 (1998).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Charlton B. Mega-trials: methodological issues and clinical implications. J. R. Coll. Phys. Lond.29(2), 96–100 (1995).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• McMahon A. Study control, violators, inclusion criteria and defining explanatory and pragmatic trials. Stat. Med.21, 1365–1376 (2002).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Viscoli P, Bruzzi M, Glauser M. An approach to the design and implementation of clinical trials of empirical antibiotic therapy in febrile and neutropenic cancer patients. Eur. J. Cancer31(1)2, 2013–2022 (1995).
   Google Scholar
• Pelletier-Fleury N, Lanoé J-L. Equivalence versus pragmatic trials for the economic evaluation of information and communication technologies; the case of polysomnography under telesurveillance in the diagnosis of sleep apnoea syndrome. Health Policy57(3), 225–234 (2001).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ang E, Lee S-T, Gan S et al. Evaluating the role of alternative therapy in burn wound management: randomized trial comparing moist exposed burn ointment with conventional methods in the management of patients with second-degree burns. MedGenMed3(2), 3 (2001).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• BS SA, Dhamb R, Kadry M et al. Benefit–cost analysis of moist exposed burn ointment. Burns28, 659–663 (2002).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Powe NR, Griffiths RI. The clinical–economic trial: promises, problems and challenges. Control Clin. Trials16, 377–394 (1995).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Ioannovits I. Plastic Surgery, Medical Editions (1990).
   Google Scholar
• Ioannovich J, Tsati E, Tsoutsos D, Frangia K, Papalois A. Moist exposed burn therapy: evaluation of the epithelial repair process (an experimental model). Ann. Burns Fire Disasters13(1), (2000).
   Google Scholar
• Bower P. Efficacy in evidence-based practice clinical psychology and psychotherapy. Clin. Psychol. Psychother.10, 328–336 (2003)
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Morien A, Bodyw J. Range of motion improves after massage in children with butns: a pilot study. Mov. Ther.12(1), 67–71 (2008)
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Field T. Postburn itching, pain and psychological symptoms are reduced with massage therapy. J. Burn Care Rehabil.21(3), 189–193 (2000)
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Baltussena R, Ament A, Leidl R. Making cost assessments based on RCTs more useful to decision-makers. Health Policy37, 163–183 (1996)
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bouvenot G, Vray M. Clinical Trials: Theory, Practice and Criticism [in French]. Flammarion, France (2006).
   Google Scholar
• Coyle D, Lee K. The problem of protocol driven costs in pharmacoeconomic analysis. Pharmacoeconomics14(4), 357–363 (1998).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Custer WS, Willke RJ. Teaching hospital costs: the effects of medical staff characteristics. Health Serv. Res.25, 831–857 (1991).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grannemann TW, Brown RS, Pauly MV. Estimating hospital costs: a multiple-output analysis. J. Health Economics5, 107–127 (1986).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heysek J, Cook J, Carides G. Statistical consideration in analysing healthcare resource utilization and cost data. In: Economic Evaluation in Health Care. Drunnond M, McGuire A (Eds). OHE Editions, London, UK 215–235 (2001).
   Google Scholar
• Hughes D, Cowell W, Koncz T, Cramer J. Methods for integrating medication compliance and persistence in pharmacoeconomic evaluations. Value Health10(6), 498–509 (2007).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sheiner LB, Rubin DB. Intention-to-treat analysis and the goals of clinical trials, Clin. Pharmacol. Therapeut.57, 61–65 (1995).
   Google Scholar
• Pedazzi P. Analysis as-randomized and the problem of nonadherence: an example from the Veterans Affairs randomized trial of coronary artery bypass surgery. Stat. Med.12, 1185–1195 (1993).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• MacRae KD. Pragmatic versus explanatory trials. Intern. J. Technol. Assessment Health Care5, 333–339 (1989).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Revicki DA, Frank L. Pharmacoeconomic evaluation in the real world. Pharmacoeconomics15(5), 423–434 (1999).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kaptchuk T. The double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial: gold standard or golden calf? J. Clin. Epidemiol.54, 541–549 (2001).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schulz KF, Chalmers I, Hayes RJ, Altman DG. Empirical evidence of bias. Dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials. J. Am. Med. Assoc.273, 408–412 (1995).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Recurrent Miscarriage Immunotherapy Trialists Group. Worldwide collaborative observational study and meta-analysis on allogeneic leukocyte immunotherapy for recurrent spontaneous abortion. Am. J. Reprod. Immunol.32, 55–72 (1994).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moher D, BaPham J, Cook DJ et al. Does the quality of randomized trials affect estimates of intervention efficacy reported in meta-analysis? Lancet352, 609–613 (1998).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Willan A, Briggs A. Statistical Analysis of Cost–Effectiveness Data. John Wiley and Sons, NJ, USA (2006).
   Google Scholar
• Tsang R, Colley L, Lynd LD. Inadequate statistical power to detect clinically significant differences in adverse event rates in RTC. J. Clin. Epidemiol.62(6), 609–616 (2009).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Good P, Hardin J. Common Errors in Statistics (and How to Avoid Them). John Wiley and Sons, NJ, USA (2006).
   Google Scholar
• Eschwbge I, Bouvenot G. Trials explanatory or pragmatic, the duality [in French]. Rev. Med. Interne15, 357–361 (1994).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harris AH, Gospodarevskaya E, Ritter AJ. A RTC of the cost effectiveness of buprenorphine as an alternative to methadone maintenance treatment for heroin dependence in a primary care setting. Pharmacoeconomics23, 77–79 (2005).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wasiak J, Cleland H, Campbell F. Dressings for superficial and partial thickness burns. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev.4, CD002106 (2008).
   Google Scholar
• Zwarenstein M, Treweek S. What kind of randomized trials do we need? J. Clin. Epidemiol.62, 461–463 (2009).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vallve C. A critical review of the pragmatic clinical trial [in Spanish]. Med. Clin. (Barc.)27, 384–388 (2003).
   Google Scholar
• Carayanni V. Sampling uncertainty in cost effectiveness evaluations and guidance given by the existing pharmacoeconomic guidelines: a question to be considered. Drug Information J.43(2), 185–194 (2009).
   Google Scholar
• Carayanni V. Handling uncertainty in cost effectiveness evaluation. Where are we? [in French]. Presented at: 9th International Conference on System Science in Health Care. Lyon, France, 3–5 September 2008.
   Google Scholar
• Iztok Hozoa M, Schellb J, Djulbegovic B. Decision-making when data and inferences are not conclusive: risk–benefit and acceptable regret approach. Semin. Hematol.45(3), 150–159 (2008).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar