Advanced search
Publication Cover
Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research Volume 10, 2010 - Issue 4
Submit an article Journal homepage
50
Views
3
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Special Report

General population versus disease-specific event rate and cost estimates: potential bias for economic appraisals

Ron Goeree Programs for the Assessment of Technology in Health (PATH) Research Institute, 25 Main St. W., Suite 2000, Hamilton, ON L8P 1H1, Canada; Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada;[email protected]
,
Daria O’Reilly Programs for the Assessment of Technology in Health (PATH) Research Institute, 25 Main St. W., Suite 2000, Hamilton, ON L8P 1H1, Canada; Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada; Programs for the Assessment of Technology in Health (PATH) Research Institute, 25 Main St. W., Suite 2000, Hamilton, ON L8P 1H1, Canada; Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada
,
Robert Hopkins Programs for the Assessment of Technology in Health (PATH) Research Institute, 25 Main St. W., Suite 2000, Hamilton, ON L8P 1H1, Canada; Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada; Programs for the Assessment of Technology in Health (PATH) Research Institute, 25 Main St. W., Suite 2000, Hamilton, ON L8P 1H1, Canada; Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada
,
Gordon Blackhouse Programs for the Assessment of Technology in Health (PATH) Research Institute, 25 Main St. W., Suite 2000, Hamilton, ON L8P 1H1, Canada; Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada; Programs for the Assessment of Technology in Health (PATH) Research Institute, 25 Main St. W., Suite 2000, Hamilton, ON L8P 1H1, Canada; Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada
,
Jean-Eric Tarride Programs for the Assessment of Technology in Health (PATH) Research Institute, 25 Main St. W., Suite 2000, Hamilton, ON L8P 1H1, Canada; Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada; Programs for the Assessment of Technology in Health (PATH) Research Institute, 25 Main St. W., Suite 2000, Hamilton, ON L8P 1H1, Canada; Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada
,
Feng Xie Programs for the Assessment of Technology in Health (PATH) Research Institute, 25 Main St. W., Suite 2000, Hamilton, ON L8P 1H1, Canada; Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada; Programs for the Assessment of Technology in Health (PATH) Research Institute, 25 Main St. W., Suite 2000, Hamilton, ON L8P 1H1, Canada; Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada
&
Morgan Lim Programs for the Assessment of Technology in Health (PATH) Research Institute, 25 Main St. W., Suite 2000, Hamilton, ON L8P 1H1, Canada; Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada; Programs for the Assessment of Technology in Health (PATH) Research Institute, 25 Main St. W., Suite 2000, Hamilton, ON L8P 1H1, Canada; Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada
 show all
Pages 379-384 | Published online: 09 Jan 2014

References

  • Trueman P, Drummond M, Hutton J. Developing guidance for budget impact analysis. PharmacoEconomics19(6), 609–621 (2001).
  • Orlewska E, Mierzejewski P. Proposal of Polish guidelines for conducting financial analysis and their comparison to existing guidance on budget impact in other countries. Value Health7(1), 1–10 (2004).
  • Mauskopf JA, Sullivan SD, Annemans L et al. Principles of good practice for budget impact analysis: report of the ISPOR Task Force on good research practices – budget impact analysis. Value Health10(5), 336–347 (2007).
  • Capri S, Ceci A, Terranova L et al. Guidelines for economic evaluations in Italy: recommendations from the Italian group of pharmacoeconomic studies. Drug Inf. J.35(1), 189–201 (2001).
  • Szende A, Mogyorosy Z, Muszbek N, Nagy J, Pallos G, Dozsa C. Methodological guidelines for conducting economic evaluation of healthcare interventions in Hungary: a Hungarian proposal for methodology standards. Eur. J. Health Econ.3(3), 196–206 (2002).
  • 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 Health8(5), 521–533 (2005).
  • von der Schulenburg J, Greiner W, Jost F et al. German recommendations on health economic evaluation: third and updated version of the Hanover Consensus. Value Health11(4), 539–544 (2008).
  • Halpern MT, Luce BR, Brown RE, Geneste B. Health and economic outcomes modeling practices: a suggested framework. Value Health1(2), 131–147 (1998).
  • Hay J, Jackson J. Panel 2: methodological issues in conducting pharmacoeconomic evaluations – modeling studies. Value Health2(2), 78–81 (1999).
  • Sculpher M, Fenwick E, Claxton K. Assessing quality in decision analytic cost–effectiveness models. A suggested framework and example of application. PharmacoEconomics17(5), 461–477 (2000).
  • Weinstein MC, O’Brien B, Hornberger J et al. Principles of good practice for decision analytic modeling in health-care evaluation: report of the ISPOR Task Force on Good Research Practices – Modeling Studies. Value Health6(1), 9–17 (2003).
  • Goeree R, O’Brien BJ, Blackhouse G. Principles of good modeling practice in healthcare cost–effectiveness studies. Expert Rev. Pharmacoeconmics Outcomes Res.4(2), 189–198 (2004).
  • Philips Z, Ginnelly L, Sculpher M et al. Review of guidelines for good practice in decision-analytic modelling in health technology assessment. Health Technol. Assess.8(36), iii–xi, 1 (2004).
  • Philips Z, Bojke L, Sculpher M, Claxton K, Golder S. Good practice guidelines for decision-analytic modelling in health technology assessment: a review and consolidation of quality assessment. PharmacoEconomics24(4), 355–371 (2006).
  • Hailey D. Toward transparency in health technology assessment: a checklist for HTA reports. Int. J. Technol. Assess. Health Care19(1), 1–7 (2003).
  • Canadian Coordinating Office for Health Technology Assessment. In: Guidelines for the Economic Evaluation of Health Technologies (3rd Edition). Canadian Coordinating Office for Health Technology Assessment. CCOHTA, Canada (2006).
  • Danish Centre for Health Technology Assessment. Health Technology Assessment Handbook. National Board of Health, Denmark (2007).
  • National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Guide to the Methods of Technology Appraisal. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, UK (2008).
  • Akobundu E, Ju J, Blatt L, Mullins CD. Cost-of-illness studies: a review of current methods. PharmacoEconomics24(9), 869–890 (2006).
  • Hux J, Tang M. Patterns of prevalence and incidence of diabetes. In: Diabetes in Ontario: an ICES practice atlas. Hux J, Booth G, Slaughter P (Eds.). Institute for Clinical and Evaluative Sciences, 1.1–1.18 (2003).
  • Goeree R, Lim ME, Hopkins R et al. Prevalence, total and excess costs of diabetes and related complications in Ontario, Canada. Can. J. Diabetes33(1), 35–45 (2009).
  • Goeree R, Lim ME, Hopkins R et al. Excess risk of mortality and complications associated with newly diagnosed cases of diabetes in Ontario, Canada. Can. J. Diabetes33(2), 93–104 (2009).
  • O’Reilly D, Hopkins R, Blackhouse G et al. Long-term cost-utility analysis of a multidisciplinary primary care diabetes management program in Ontario. Can. J. Diabetes31(3), 205–214 (2007).
  • Kuntz KM, Weinstein MC. Life expectancy biases in clinical decision modeling. Med. Decis. Making15(2), 158–169 (1995).

Websites

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.