PharmacoEconomics

, Volume 13, Issue 3, pp 305–316 | Cite as

The Selection of Data Sources For Use in Modelling Studies

Review Article Data Sources in Modelling Studies

Summary

Economic analysis has become increasingly important in healthcare in general, and particularly with respect to pharmaceuticals. Therefore, it is vital that the methods used in such evaluations are carefully scrutinised and refined. However, guidelines contain only a limited number of recommendations for the use of secondary data in modelling studies.

In this manuscript, the selection of data sources in modelling studies will be addressed. The objectives of this manuscript are as follows: (i) to present a general strategy on how to determine the appropriateness of a data source for a model; and (ii) to present recommendations on a transparent reporting format for the selection of data sources.

Keywords

Adis International Limited Treatment Failure Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitor Healthcare Resource Generalise Anxiety Disorder 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Australia Commonwealth Department of Health, Housing and Community Services. Guidelines for the pharmaceutical industry on preparation of submissions to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee. Canberra: Commonwealth Department, 1992Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Commonwealth of Australia Department of Human Services and Health. Guidelines for the pharmaceutical industry on preparation of submissions to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee including major submissions involving economic analysis. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service, 1995Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Canadian Coordinating Office for Health Technology Assessment (CCOHTA). Guidelines for economic evaluation of pharmaceuticals: Canada. 1st ed. Ottawa: CCOHTA, 1994Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ontario guidelines for economic analysis of pharmaceutical products. Ontario: Canadian Ministry of Health, Drug Programs Branch, 1993Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Weinstein MC, Fineberg HV. Clinical decision analysis. Philadelphia: WB Saunders Co., 1980: 228–65Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Egger M, Davey-Smith G. Misleading meta—analysis. BMJ 1995; 310: 752–4PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Detsky AS, O’Rourke KO, Corey PN, et al. The hazards of using active clinic patients as a source of subjects for clinical studies. J Gen Intern Med 1988; 32: 260–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Sacket DL. Bias in analytical research. J Chronic Dis 1979; 32: 51–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Jariath N, Weinstein J. The Delphi methodology (part 2): a useful administrative approach. Can J Nurs Adm 1994; 7 (4): 7–20Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Jones J, Hunter D. Consensus methods for medical and health services research. BMJ 1995; 311: 376–80PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Barr J, Schumacher G. Using decision analysis to conduct pharmacoeconomic studies. In: Spilker B, editor. Quality of life and pharmacoeconomics in clinical trials. 2nd ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott—Raven Publishers, 1996: 1197–214Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Williams P, Webb C. The Delphi technique: a methodological discussion. J Adv Nurs 1994; 19: 180–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Evans C. The use of consensus methods and expert panels in pharmacoeconomic studies: practical applications and methodological shortcomings. Pharmacoeconomics 1997; 12 (2 Pt 1): 121–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Nuijten MJC, Hardens M, Souetre E. A Markov process analysis comparing the cost effectiveness of maintenance therapy with citalopram versus standard therapy in major depression. Pharmacoeconomics. 1995; 8 (2): 159–168PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Clinical practice guideline. Depression in primary care: treatment of major depression (AHCPR publication no. 93-0551). Rockville (MD): Public Health Service, Agency for Health Care Policy and Research, 1993Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Rosenberg C, Damsbo N, Fuglum E, et al. Citalopram and imipramine in the treatment of depressive patients in general practice: a Nordic multicentre clinical study. Int Clin Psychopharmacol 1994; 9 Suppl. 1: 41–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Rote Liste 1993. Arzneimittelverzeichnis des BPI. Aulendorf/Würtemberg: Edition Cantor Verlag für Medizin und Naturwissenschaften GmbH, 1993Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    BMA. Bewertungsmass—stab für kassenärtzliche Leistungen. Cologne: Deutscher Artze—Verlag GmbH, 1993Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    DOK-8: AOK-Bundesverband 1994 Apr 15: 256Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Montgomery SA, Rasmussen JGC, Tanghoi P. A 24−week study of 20 mg citalopram and placebo in the prevention of relapse of major depression. Int Clin Psychopharmacol 1993; 9: 181–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Clemens K, Townsend R, Luscombe F, et al. Methodological and conduct principles for pharmacoeconomic research. Pharmacoeconomics 1995; 8 (2): 169–74PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Drummond MF, Jefferson TO. Guidelines for authors and peer reviewers of economic submissions to the BMJ. BMJ 1996; 313: 275–83.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Jefferson T, Demichelli V. Are guidelines for peer—reviewing economic evaluation necessary? A survey of current editorial practice. Health Econ 1995; 4: 383–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Adis International Limited 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The Lewin GroupThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations