Summary
This article presents the first version of the reporting format for economic valuation that was created in 1995 by a multidisciplinary taskforce. The members of this taskforce come from a broad spectrum of backgrounds within the healthcare field and participated in the exercise voluntarily. The format presented should be understood as the preferred Dutch structure for the reporting of any study on economic evaluation. In view of the many areas of contention that exist within the field, this format only gives normative directions in those areas in which consensus exists, as evidenced by the current published international guidelines. A regular review and adaptation of this format will be needed to reflect advances in the field.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Drummond MF, Stoddart GL, Torrance GW. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987
Commissie criteria in de zorg [commissie-Dunning], Kiezen en delen. Rijswijk: Ministerie van WVC, 1991
Clemens K, Townsend R, Luscombe F, et al. Methodological and conduct principles for pharmacoeconomic research. Pharamcoeconomics 1995; 8 (2): 169–74
Drummond MF, Jefferson TO. Guidelines for authors and peer reviewers of economic submissions to the BMJ. BMJ 1996; 313: 275–83
Jefferson T, Demichelli V. Are guidelines for peer-reviewing economic evaluation necessary? A survey of current editorial practice. Health Econ 1995; 4: 383–8
Guidelines for the pharmaceutical industry on preparation of submission to the pharmaceutical benefits advisory committee. Canberra: Commonwealth Department of Human Services,1995
Torrance GW, Blaker D, Detsky A, et al. Canadian guidelines for economic evaluation of pharmaceuticals. Pharamcoeconomics 1996; 9 (6): 536–59
Ontario Ministry of Health. Ontario guidelines for economic evaluation of pharmaceutical products. Toronto: Ontario Ministry of Health, 1
Garattini L, Grilli R, Scoopelliti F, et al. A proposal for Italian guidelines in pharmacoeconomics. Pharmacoeconomics 1995; 7 (1): 1–6
Rovira J, Antonanzas F. Economic analysis of health technologies and programmes: a Spanish proposal for methodological standardisation. Pharamacoeconomics 1995: 8 (6): 493–7
Van der Schulenburg JM, Greiner W. ‘Hannover Guidelines’ für die ökonomische: evaluation von Gesundheitsgütern unddienstleistungen. Pharm Ind 1995; 57 (4): 265–8
Brecht JG, Jenke A, Köhler ME, et al. Emphelungen der Deutsche Gesellschaf für klinische Pharmacologie und Therapie zur Durchführung und Bewertung pharmakoökonomische Studien. Klin Pharmacol Akt 1995; 6 (1): 4–11
A proposal for methodological guidelines for economic evaluation of pharmaceuticals. Gent: Belgian Society for Pharmacoepidemiology, 1995
Gelber RD, Cole BF, Belber S, et al. The Q-TWIST method. In: Spilker B, editor. Quality of life and pharmacoeconomics in clinical trials. 2nd ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott-Raven Publishers
Torrance GW, Feeny D. Utilities and quality adjusted life years. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 1989; 5; 559–75
Mehrez A, Gafni A. Quality adjusted life years, utility theory, and healthy years equivalents. Med Decis Making 1989; 9: 142–9
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Nuijten, M.J.C., Brorens, M.J.A., Hekster, Y.A. et al. Reporting Format for Economic Evaluation. Pharmacoeconomics 14, 159–163 (1998). https://doi.org/10.2165/00019053-199814020-00004
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2165/00019053-199814020-00004