Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-13T04:46:05.219Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

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 ,
Andrea Manca  and
Mark Sculpher
Michael Drummond
Affiliation:
University of York
Andrea Manca
Affiliation:
University of York
Mark Sculpher
Affiliation:
University of York
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

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.

Keywords

Cost-effectiveness analysisClinical trialsModeling studiesDecision making
Type
GENERAL ESSAYS
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 21 , Issue 2 , April 2005 , pp. 165 - 171
Copyright
© 2005 Cambridge University Press

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

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: 359– 371.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): 10– 23.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: 372– 381.Google Scholar
Claxton K, Sculpher M, Drummond M. 2002 A rational framework for decision making by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence. Lancet. 360: 711– 715.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: 1955– 1976.Google Scholar
Drummond MF. 2001 Introducing economic and quality of life measurements into clinical studies. Annal Med. 33: 344– 349.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: 210– 228.Google Scholar
Hjelmgren J, Berggren F, Anderson F. 2001 Health economic guidelines: Similarities, differences and some implications. Value Health 4: 225– 250.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: 415– 430.Google Scholar
Johannesson M, O'Conor RM. 1997 Cost-utility analysis from a societal perspective. Health Policy. 39: 241– 253.Google Scholar
McClellan M, Newhouse JP. 1997 The marginal cost-effectiveness of a medical technology. A panel instrumental-variables approach. J Econ. 77: 39– 64.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: 226– 239.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: 461– 477.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): iii– iv 1– 19.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: 3251– 3274.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: 1897– 1902.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: 9– 17. 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: 481– 493.Google Scholar