Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
A systematic review of pharmacoeconomic guidelines.
Zhao, Ye; Feng, Hai-Ming; Qu, Ji; Luo, Xiu; Ma, Wen-Juan; Tian, Jin-Hui.
Afiliação
  • Zhao Y; a Evidence-based Medicine Center, School of Basic Medical Science , Lanzhou University , Lanzhou , PR China.
  • Feng HM; b The Second Clinical Medical College of Lanzhou University , Lanzhou , PR China.
  • Qu J; b The Second Clinical Medical College of Lanzhou University , Lanzhou , PR China.
  • Luo X; c Department of NICU , The General Hospital of Ningxia Medical University , Yinchuan , PR China.
  • Ma WJ; a Evidence-based Medicine Center, School of Basic Medical Science , Lanzhou University , Lanzhou , PR China.
  • Tian JH; a Evidence-based Medicine Center, School of Basic Medical Science , Lanzhou University , Lanzhou , PR China.
J Med Econ ; 21(1): 85-96, 2018 Jan.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-28959910
OBJECTIVE: To review, summarize, and analyze both similarities and differences of pharmacoeconomic (PE) guidelines, to enable researchers to access their characteristics and the current state of PE guidelines; furthermore, to learn which methodological issues still remain contested and to promote the methodological development of PE guidelines. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The authors performed a search for PE guidelines using PubMed, the Cochrane library database, and the websites of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research. Information of each guideline was extracted using a pre-designed extraction template, which included 22 aspects; the guidelines were summarized in the forms of charts, and their characteristics have been described. RESULTS: A total of 40 PE guidelines were studied. The most common methodological issues include the types of analysis, sources for effectiveness, use of quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) to measure outcomes, and use of incremental cost effectiveness ratios to present results. The majority of the guidelines preferred a cost utility analysis with outcomes expressed in terms of QALYs. Most of the guidelines preferred meta-analysis or meta-analysis of the randomized controlled trials, and required a systematic review of all evidence. Issues that varied most in the guidelines were the choice of the comparator, recommended costs to be included, methods related to indirect cost calculations, methods of sensitivity analysis, and discounting rate. CONCLUSION: A comparison of these guidelines revealed that a number of differences exist among them in several key aspects, and some critical methodological issues still exist, for which no best solution is available. Furthermore, efforts need to be made to develop harmonious methods for the PE, and to improve the transferability of the outcomes of PE evaluations.
Assuntos
Palavras-chave

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Contexto em Saúde: 2_ODS3 Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Análise Custo-Benefício / Guias de Prática Clínica como Assunto / Farmacoeconomia Tipo de estudo: Clinical_trials / Guideline / Health_economic_evaluation / Systematic_reviews Aspecto: Patient_preference Limite: Female / Humans / Male Idioma: En Revista: J Med Econ Ano de publicação: 2018 Tipo de documento: Article

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Contexto em Saúde: 2_ODS3 Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Análise Custo-Benefício / Guias de Prática Clínica como Assunto / Farmacoeconomia Tipo de estudo: Clinical_trials / Guideline / Health_economic_evaluation / Systematic_reviews Aspecto: Patient_preference Limite: Female / Humans / Male Idioma: En Revista: J Med Econ Ano de publicação: 2018 Tipo de documento: Article