Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T05:20:36.319Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

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 ,
Morgan E. Lim ,
James M. Bowen ,
Catherine Elizabeth McCarron ,
Gord Blackhouse ,
Robert Hopkins ,
Daria O'Reilly ,
Feng Xie  and
Ron Goeree
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
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

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.

Keywords

CanadaEconomic evaluationsStatistical methods
Type
General Essays
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 25 , Issue 2 , April 2009 , pp. 214 - 221
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

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;51:87–99.Google Scholar
2. Anis, AH, Rahman, T, Schechter, MT. Using pharmacoeconomic analysis to make drug insurance coverage decisions. Pharmacoeconomics. 1998;13:119–126.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3. Baladi, JF, Menon, D, Otten, N. Use of economic evaluation guidelines: 2 years' experience in Canada. Health Econ. 1998;7:221–227.3.0.CO;2-N>CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4. Barber, JA, Thompson, SG. Analysis and interpretation of cost data in randomised controlled trials: Review of published studies. BMJ. 1998;317:1195–1200.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5. Briggs, AH. Statistical approaches to handling uncertainty in health economic evaluation. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2004;16:551–561.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;14:339–347.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;8:89–95.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
13. Doshi, JA, Glick, HA, Polsky, D. Analyses of cost data in economic evaluations conducted alongside randomized controlled trials. Value Health. 2006;9:334–340.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
14. Fenwick, E, Claxton, K, Sculpher, M. Representing uncertainty: The role of cost-effectiveness acceptability curves. Health Econ. 2001;10:779–787.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;19:685–691.Google Scholar
16. Garcia-Altes, A. Twenty years of health care economic analysis in Spain: Are we doing well? Health Econ. 2001;10:715–729.Google 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;11:735–739.Google 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;28:408–418.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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;23:709–721.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
21. Machado, M, Iskedjian, M, Einarson, TR. Quality assessment of published health economic analyses from South America. Ann Pharmacother. 2006;40:943–949.Google Scholar
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;16:731–742.Google Scholar
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;8:521–533.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;31:111–125.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
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;24:437–444.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Tarride supplementary material

Supplementary Figues and tables

Download Tarride supplementary material(File)
File 50.2 KB
Supplementary material: Image

Tarride supplementary material

Supplementary figure 1

Download Tarride supplementary material(Image)
Image 11.9 KB
Supplementary material: File

Tarride supplementary material

Supplementary figure 2

Download Tarride supplementary material(File)
File 18.4 KB