 |
 |

Sources of Bias in the Economic Analysis of New Drugs
 |
 |
| Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text and any section headings. |
|
 |
 |
To the Editor: Mr Friedberg and colleagues1 found that studies sponsored by drug companies were less likely to report unfavorable results than studies funded by nonprofit organizations. The authors posited several alternative explanations for their findings, including publication bias, unconscious bias because of relationships between the investigator and the pharmaceutical company, early screening of studies by drug firms, and direct company involvement with the study design.
As noted in the accompanying editorial,2 the conflict of interest hypothesis would be strengthened by a study design comparing several economic evaluations, from different funding sources, of a single agent. However, the design of the study by Friedberg et al allows alternative explanations to be considered. First, many pharmaceutical companies conduct internal economic evaluations throughout the development of a drug product. Because reimbursement for a drug product is often dependent on positive economic findings,3 otherwise promising products may be terminated during development by the . . . [Full Text of this Article]
CiteULike Connotea Del.icio.us Digg Reddit Technorati Twitter
What's this?
RELATED ARTICLE
Evaluation of Conflict of Interest in Economic Analyses of New Drugs Used in Oncology
Mark Friedberg, Bernard Saffran, Tammy J. Stinson, Wendy Nelson, and Charles L. Bennett
JAMA. 1999;282(15):1453-1457.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES
 |
Quantitative analysis of sponsorship bias in economic studies of antidepressants
Baker et al.
Br. J. Psychiatry 2003;183:498-506.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Pharmacoeconomic Analyses: Making Them Transparent, Making Them Credible
Rennie and Luft
JAMA 2000;283:2158-2160.
FULL TEXT
|