Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-888d5979f-x5hg2 Total loading time: 0.23 Render date: 2021-10-25T21:38:02.593Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true, "newUsageEvents": true }

In search of the evidentiary foundation of published Canadian economic evaluations (2001–06)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 March 2009

Jean-Eric Tarride
Affiliation:
McMaster University
Morgan E. Lim
Affiliation:
McMaster University
James M. Bowen
Affiliation:
McMaster University
Catherine Elizabeth McCarron
Affiliation:
McMaster University
Gord Blackhouse
Affiliation:
McMaster University
Robert Hopkins
Affiliation:
McMaster University
Daria O'Reilly
Affiliation:
McMaster University
Feng Xie
Affiliation:
McMaster University
Ron Goeree
Affiliation:
McMaster University

Abstract

Objectives: The aim of this study was to present a review of economic evaluations conducted from a Canadian perspective and to characterize sources of evidence and statistical methods to analyze effectiveness measures, resource utilization, and uncertainty.

Methods: A search strategy was developed to identify Canadian economic evaluations published between January 2001 and June 2006. A standardized abstraction form was used to extract key data (e.g., study design, data sources, statistical methods).

Results: A total of 153 unique studies were included for review, of which 75 were evaluations of drug therapies and less than half were funded by industry. Cost-effectiveness analysis was the most common type of economic evaluation and 80 percent of the studies used modeling techniques. A single source of evidence for effectiveness measures was used in half of the studies. Statistical methods were commonly reported to compare effectiveness measures when the economic evaluation was conducted alongside a clinical trial but less commonly when determining effectiveness input parameters in model-based economic evaluations, or to analyze resource utilization data. Authors relied mostly on univariate sensitivity analyses to explore uncertainty.

Conclusions: This review identifies the need to improve the conduct and reporting of statistical methods for economic evaluations to improve confidence in the results.

Type
General Essays
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Anell, A, Norinder, A. Health outcome measures used in cost-effectiveness studies: A review of original articles published between 1986 and 1996. Health Policy. 2000;51:8799.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2. Anis, AH, Rahman, T, Schechter, MT. Using pharmacoeconomic analysis to make drug insurance coverage decisions. Pharmacoeconomics. 1998;13:119126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3. Baladi, JF, Menon, D, Otten, N. Use of economic evaluation guidelines: 2 years' experience in Canada. Health Econ. 1998;7:221227.3.0.CO;2-N>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4. Barber, JA, Thompson, SG. Analysis and interpretation of cost data in randomised controlled trials: Review of published studies. BMJ. 1998;317:11951200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5. Briggs, AH. Statistical approaches to handling uncertainty in health economic evaluation. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2004;16:551561.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6. Cameron, AC, Trivedi, PK. Regression analysis of count data. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7. Canadian Agency for Drug and Technologies in Health (CADTH). Guidelines for the economic evaluation of health technologies. 3rd ed. Ottawa: CADTH; 2006.Google Scholar
8. Canadian Coordinating Office for Health Technology Assessment. Guidelines for economic evaluation of pharmaceuticals: Canada. 1st edition; 1994.Google Scholar
9. Canadian Coordinating Office for Health Technology Assessment. Guidelines for economic evaluation of pharmaceuticals: Canada. 2nd edition; 1997.Google Scholar
10. Claxton, K, Sculpher, M, McCabe, C et al. , Probabilistic sensitivity analysis for NICE technology assessment: Not an optional extra. Health Econ. 2005;14:339347.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11. Cornago, D, Li Bassi, L, De Compadri, P, Garattini, L. Pharmacoeconomic studies in Italy: A critical review of the literature. Eur J Health Econ. 2007;8:8995.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12. Dalziel, K, Segal, L, Mortimer, D. Review of Australian health economic evaluation – 245 interventions: What can we say about cost effectiveness? Cost Eff Resour Alloc. 2008;6:9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13. Doshi, JA, Glick, HA, Polsky, D. Analyses of cost data in economic evaluations conducted alongside randomized controlled trials. Value Health. 2006;9:334340.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
14. Fenwick, E, Claxton, K, Sculpher, M. Representing uncertainty: The role of cost-effectiveness acceptability curves. Health Econ. 2001;10:779787.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
15. Garattini, L, De Compadri, P, Clemente, R, Cornago, D. Economic evaluations in Italy: A review of the literature. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2003;19:685691.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
16. Garcia-Altes, A. Twenty years of health care economic analysis in Spain: Are we doing well? Health Econ. 2001;10:715729.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17. Graves, N, Walker, D, Raine, R et al. , Cost data for individual patients included in clinical studies: No amount of statistical analysis can compensate for inadequate costing methods. Health Econ. 2002;11:735739.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
18. Greene, WH. Econometric analysis. 4th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall; 2000.Google Scholar
19. Hutchinson, MK, Holtman, MC. Analysis of count data using poisson regression. Res Nurs Health. 2005;28:408418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
20. Lee, KS, Brouwer, WBF, Lee, SI, Koo, HW. Introducing economic evaluation as a policy tool in Korea: Will decision makers get quality information? A critical review of published Korean economic evaluations. Pharmacoeconomics. 2005;23:709721.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
21. Machado, M, Iskedjian, M, Einarson, TR. Quality assessment of published health economic analyses from South America. Ann Pharmacother. 2006;40:943949.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
22. Nixon, J, Stoykova, B, Glanville, J et al. , The U.K. NHS economic evaluation database. Economic issues in evaluations of health technology. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2000;16:731742.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
23. 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 Health. 2005;8:521533.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
24. Salkeld, G, Davey, P, Arnolda, G. A critical review of health-related economic evaluations in Australia: Implications for health policy. Health Policy. 1995;31:111125.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
25. Schwappach, DL, Boluarte, TA. HEE-GER: A systematic review of German economic evaluations of health care published 1990–2004. BMC Health Serv Res. 2007;7:7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
26. Tarride, JE, McCarron, CE, Lim, M et al. , Economic evaluations conducted by Canadian health technology assessment agencies: Where do we stand? Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2008;24:437444.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Supplementary material: File

Tarride supplementary material

Supplementary Figues and tables

Download Tarride supplementary material(File)
File 50 KB
Supplementary material: Image

Tarride supplementary material

Supplementary figure 1

Download Tarride supplementary material(Image)
Image 12 KB
Supplementary material: File

Tarride supplementary material

Supplementary figure 2

Download Tarride supplementary material(File)
File 18 KB

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.

In search of the evidentiary foundation of published Canadian economic evaluations (2001–06)
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.

In search of the evidentiary foundation of published Canadian economic evaluations (2001–06)
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.

In search of the evidentiary foundation of published Canadian economic evaluations (2001–06)
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *