 |
|
Problems in Pharmacoeconomic Analyses
|
|
| 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: The pharmaceutical industry in Australia is certainly aware that pharmacoeconomic analyses are complex and difficult to evaluate, as stated in the article by Dr Hill and colleagues,1 but we disagree with its conclusions. It is also not obvious from the article that at least 2 of the authors were involved previously in more than 1 stage of the analysis of each submission. This brings their perspective into question.
As pointed out in the Editorial by Drs Rennie and Luft,2 governments have biases, too. Kassirer and Angell3 have pointed out that cost-effectiveness analyses share many of the features of a review article. Both allow numerous judgment calls by the analyst, all of which may be biased.
In determining the relevance of the highlighted problems, it would have been helpful for Hill et al to describe their relationship to the recommendation of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Commitee (PBAC). Although . . . [Full Text of this Article]
 CiteULike  Connotea  Del.icio.us  Digg  Reddit  Technorati  Twitter
What's this?
RELATED LETTER
Problems With the Interpretation of Pharmacoeconomic Analyses: A Review of Submissions to the Australian Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme
Suzanne R. Hill, Andrew S. Mitchell, and David A. Henry
JAMA. 2000;283(16):2116-2121.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
RELATED ARTICLE
Problems With the Interpretation of Pharmacoeconomic Analyses: A Review of Submissions to the Australian Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme
Suzanne R. Hill, Andrew S. Mitchell, and David A. Henry
JAMA. 2000;283(16):2116-2121.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES
|
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Periacetabular Osteotomy
Sharifi et al.
JBJS 2008;90:1447-1456.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
|
