The objective of this study is to analyze the guidance given by the existing pharmacoeconomic guidelines up to the sampling uncertainty. The aim is to focus on the existing degree of vagueness of guidelines in order to facilitate the tasks of those who must base their choices on studies of this kind.
After the grouping of methods in an appropriate way so that there would be a relative correspondence with the guidelines, a selection of 22 guidelines was made to study the precision given to sampling uncertainty and the preferred methods of handling this uncertainty.
The methods of handling uncertainty have plainly evolved in recent years. However, the differentiations in the guidelines concerning this field are considerable. Consequently, the tasks of submitters, evaluators, and decision makers become very difficult.
O'BrienBJDrummondMFLabelleRJIn search of power and significance issues in the design and analysis of stochastic CE studies in health care. Med Care.1994;32:150–163.
2.
PolskyDGlickHAWillkeRCI for CE ratios: a comparison of four methods. Health Econ.1997;6:243–252.
3.
WakkerPKlaassenMP. CI for cost/effectiveness ratios. Health Econ.1995;4:373–381.
4.
LaskaEMeisnerMSeigelC.Statistical inference for CE ratios. Health Econ.1997;6:229–242.
5.
GardinerJHuebnerM.On parametric CI for the CE ratio. Biometrical J.2001;43:283–296.
6.
BriggsAFennP.CI or surfaces? Uncertainty on the cost-effectiveness plane. Health Econ.1998;7: 723–740.
7.
Van HoutBAGordonGSCosts, effects and C/E ratios alongside a clinical trial. Health Econ.1994;3:309–319.
8.
BriggsAMooneyCZWonderlingDE. Constructing CI for cost effectiveness ratios: an evaluation of parametric and nonparametric techniques using Monte Carlo simulation. Stat Med.1999;18:3245–3262.
9.
TambourMZethraeusN.Bootstrap CI for CE ratios: some simulation results. Health Econ.1998;7: 143–147.
10.
GoodPHardinJ.Common Errors in Statistics (and How to Avoid Them).New York: Wiley; 2006.
11.
BarberJAThompsonSG. Analysis of cost data in randomized trials: an application of the non-parametric bootstrap. Stat Med.2000;19:2319–2336.
12.
RubinDB. The Bayesian bootstrap. Ann Stat.1981;9:130–134.
13.
BriggsAWonderlingDMoneyC.Pulling CE analysis up by its bootstraps: a nonparametric approach to confidence interval estimation. Health Econ.1997;6:327–340.
14.
LordJAsanteMA. Estimating uncertainty ranges for costs by the bootstrap procedure combined with probabilistic sensitivity analysis. Health Econ.1999;8:323–333.
15.
CookDHeyseJF. Use of angular transformation for ratio estimation in cost effectiveness analysis. Stat Med.2000;19:2989–3003.
16.
HeitjanDF. Bayesian methods for analyze CE. In BriggsA, ed., Statistical Methods in Medical Research: A Guide to Current Issues and Future Developments.New York: OHE Publications; 2003.
17.
ClaxtonKPosnettJ.An economic approach to clinical trial design and research priority setting. Health Econ.1996;5:513–524.
18.
StinnettAAMulahyJ.Net health benefits: a new framework for the analysis of uncertainty in CE analysis. Med Decis Mak.1998;18(2 Suppl): S68-S80.
19.
ZethraeusNJohanensonMJohnsonBAdvantages of using the NB approach for analysing uncertainty in economic evaluation studies. Pharmacoeconomics.2003;21(1): 39–48.
20.
LöthgrenMZethraeusN.Definition, interpretation and calculation of CE acceptability curves. Health Econ.1999;9:623–630.
21.
HahnSWhiteheadA.An illustration of the modelling of cost and efficacy data from a clinical trial. Stat Med.2003;22:1009–1024.
22.
HeitjanDFMoskowitzAJWhangW.Bayesian estimation of cost-effectiveness ratios from clinical trials. Health Econ.1999;8:191–201.
23.
SendiPBriggsA.affordability and cost effectiveness decision making on the cost effectiveness plane. Health Econ.2001;10:675–680.
24.
FenwikEClaxtonKSculpherM.Representing uncertainty: the role of cost effectiveness CEAC's. Health Econ.2001;10:779–787.
25.
O'HaganAStevensJ.Assessing and comparing costs: how robust are the bootstrap and methods based on asymptotic mortality?Health Econ.2003;12:33–49.
26.
BriggsA.A Bayesian approach to stochastic cost-effectiveness analysis. Health Econ.1999;8:257–66.
27.
JonesDA. A Bayesian approach to the economic evaluation of health care technologies. In SpikerB, ed., Quality of Life in Clinical Trials, 2nd ed.Philadelphia: Lippincott-Raven; 1996.
28.
BalaMVMauskoffJ.The estimation and use of CI in economic analysis. Drug Inf J.1999;33:841–848.
Belgian Society for Pharmacoepidemiology.A proposal for methodological guidelines for economic evaluation of pharmaceuticals. 2008. Available at: http://source/BESPHE.pdf.
36.
Swiss Federal Office of Social Security.Manual for the Standardisation of Clinical and Economic Evaluation of Medical Technology.SFOSS Editions; 1998.
37.
Canadian Coordinating Office of Health Technology Assessment.Guidelines for Economic Evaluation of Pharmaceuticals: Canada.CCOHTA Editions; 2006.
38.
SzendeÁMogyorósyZMuszbekNMethodological guidelines for conducting economic valuation of healthcare interventions in Hungary: a Hungarian proposal for methodology standards. Eur J Health Econ.2002;3:196–206.
RoviraJAntonanzasF.Propuesta se estandarizacion de algunos aspharmacoeconomictos methodologicos de los analysis coste effectividad y coste utilidad en la evaluacion de tecnologias y programas sanitarios. 1993. Available at: http://www.aes.es (in Spanish).
