Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-559fc8cf4f-xbbwl Total loading time: 0.559 Render date: 2021-03-05T14:05:16.611Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": false, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true }

Increasing the generalizability of economic evaluations: Recommendations for the design, analysis, and reporting of studies

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 April 2005

Michael Drummond
Affiliation:
University of York
Andrea Manca
Affiliation:
University of York
Mark Sculpher
Affiliation:
University of York

Abstract

Objectives: Health technology assessment (HTA) is increasingly an international activity, and HTA agencies collaborate to avoid unnecessary duplication of effort. However, the sharing of the results from HTAs raises questions about their generalizability; namely, are the results of an HTA undertaken in one country relevant to another?

Methods: This study presents recommendations for increasing the generalizability of economic evaluations. They represent an important component of HTAs and are commonly thought to have limited generalizability.

Results: Recommendations are given for studies using patient-level data (i.e., evaluations conducted alongside clinical trials) and for studies using decision analytic modeling.

Conclusions: If implemented, the recommendations would increase the value for investments in HTA.

Type
GENERAL ESSAYS
Copyright
© 2005 Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below.

References

Ades AE, Cliffe S. 2002 Markov Chain Monte Carlo estimation of a multi-parameter decision model: Consistency of evidence and the accurate assessment of uncertainty. Med Decis Making. 22: 359371.Google Scholar
Barbieri M, Drummond M, Willke R, et al. 2005 Variability of cost-effectiveness estimates for pharmaceuticals in Western Europe: Lessons for inferring generalisability. Value Health. 8 (1): 1023.Google Scholar
Brown LC, Epstein D, Manca A, et al. 2004 The UK Endovascular Aneurism Report (EVAR) Trials: Design, methodology and progress. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 27: 372381.Google Scholar
Claxton K, Sculpher M, Drummond M. 2002 A rational framework for decision making by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence. Lancet. 360: 711715.Google Scholar
Cook JR, Drummond M, Glick H, Heyse JF. 2003 Assessing the appropriateness of combining economic data from multinational clinical trials. Stat Med. 22: 19551976.Google Scholar
Drummond MF. 2001 Introducing economic and quality of life measurements into clinical studies. Annal Med. 33: 344349.Google Scholar
Drummond MF, Pang F. 2001. Transferability of economic evaluation results. In: Drummond MF, McGuire A, eds. Economic evaluation in health care: Merging theory with practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press
Eddy DM. 1989 The confidence profile method: A Bayesian method for assessing health technologies. Oper Res. 37: 210228.Google Scholar
Hjelmgren J, Berggren F, Anderson F. 2001 Health economic guidelines: Similarities, differences and some implications. Value Health 4: 225250.Google Scholar
Hoch JS, Briggs AH, Willan A. 2002 Something old, something new, something borrowed, something BLUE: A framework for the marriage of health econometrics and cost-effectiveness analysis. Health Econ. 11: 415430.Google Scholar
Johannesson M, O'Conor RM. 1997 Cost-utility analysis from a societal perspective. Health Policy. 39: 241253.Google Scholar
McClellan M, Newhouse JP. 1997 The marginal cost-effectiveness of a medical technology. A panel instrumental-variables approach. J Econ. 77: 3964.Google Scholar
Manca A, Rice N, Sculpher MJ, Briggs AH. Assessing generalisability by location in trial-based cost-effectiveness analysis: The use of multilevel models. Health Econom. In press.
Manning R, Claxton K. 1997 Experimental and econometric solutions to selection bias. Paper presented to the Health Economics Study Group. York
National Institute for Clinical Excellence. Guide to the methods of technology appraisal. London: NICE; April 2004.
Olschewski M, Schumacher M, Davis KB. 1992 Analysis of randomised and nonrandomised patients in clinical trials using comprehensive cohort follow-up study design. Control Clin Trials 13: 226239.Google Scholar
Sculpher M, Fenwick E, Claxton K. 2000 Assessing quality in decision analytic cost-effectiveness models: A suggested framework and example of application. Pharmacoeconomics 17: 461477.Google Scholar
Sculpher MF, Pang FS, Manca A, et al. 2004 Generalisability in economic evaluation studies in health care: A review and case studies. Health Technol Assess. 8 (49): iiiiv 119.Google Scholar
Sharp SJ, Thompson SG. 2000 Analysing the relationship between treatment effect and underlying risk in meta-analysis: Comparison and development of approaches. Stat Med. 19: 32513274.Google Scholar
Simon GE, VonKorff M, Heiligenstein JH, et al. 1996 Initial antidepressant choice in primary care. Effectiveness and cost of fluoxetine vs tricyclic antidepressants. JAMA. 275: 18971902.Google Scholar
Sutton AJ, Abrams KR, Jones DR, Sheldon TA, Song TA. 2000. Methods for meta-analysis in medical research. Chichester: Wiley
Weinstein MC, O'Brien B, Hornberger J, et al. 2003 Principles for good practice for decision analytic modelling in health care evaluation. A Report of the ISPOR Task Force on good research practices—modelling studies. Value Health 6: 917. Available at: http://www.ispor.org/workpaper/healthscience/TFModeling.pdf. Accessed: February 2002.Google Scholar
Willke RJ, Glick HA, Polsky D, Schulman KA. 1998 Estimating country-specific cost-effectiveness from multinational clinical trials. Health Econ. 7: 481493.Google Scholar

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Full text views reflects PDF downloads, PDFs sent to Google Drive, Dropbox and Kindle and HTML full text views.

Total number of HTML views: 44
Total number of PDF views: 495 *
View data table for this chart

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 5th March 2021. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Increasing the generalizability of economic evaluations: Recommendations for the design, analysis, and reporting of studies
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Increasing the generalizability of economic evaluations: Recommendations for the design, analysis, and reporting of studies
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Increasing the generalizability of economic evaluations: Recommendations for the design, analysis, and reporting of studies
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response


Your details


Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *