Zusammenfassung
Der Anspruch, für gesundheitsökonomische Studien Transparenz und Vergleichbarkeit bei hoher Qualität zu schaffen, macht die Definition von Standards zur Publikation und Bewertung gesundheitsökonomischer Standards unumgänglich. Verschiedene Arbeitsgruppen haben sich mit diesem Thema eingehend beschäftigt. Bezüglich des Studiendesigns, der Datensammlung sowie der Analyse und Interpretation der Ergebnisse sind 35 Kriterien definiert worden, welche bei der Publikation sowie im Review-Prozess Berücksichtigung finden sollen. Auf die Auswirkungen solcher Standards wird kritisch eingegangen.
Die Wichtigkeit der Einführung von Durchführungsstandards und einheitlichen Bewertungsmaßstäben unter Erhalt der medizinischen und klinischen Handlungsfreiheit wird betont.
Abstract
The demand of transparency and comparability in health-economic trials with high quality requires the definition of standards for publication and evaluation. Several work groups dealt with this matter in detail. Concering study design, data collection as well as analysis and interpretation of the results 35 criteria were defined to be taken into account in publication and the review process. The impact of such standards is appraised critically. The importance of inventing standards for the conduct and consistent measures for evaluation as well as conservation of the medical and clinical discretionary are underlined.
Literatur
-
1
Neumann P J, Stone P W, Chapman R H, Sandberg E A, Bell C M.
The quality of reporting in published cost-utility analyses, 1976 - 1997.
Ann Int Med.
2000;
132
964-972
-
2 Drummond M F, O’Brien B, Stoddart G L, Torrance G W. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. Second edition ed. Oxford; Oxford University Press 1997
-
3
Schrappe M, Lauterbach K W.
Systematic review on the cost-effectiveness of public health interventions for HIV prevention in industrialized countries.
AIDS.
1998;
12 (suppl. A)
S231-S238
-
4
Bakst A, Power E, Basskin L, Burke L, Governali G, Ortiz E. et al .
Panel 7: Communication and Reporting Health Economic Information.
Value in Health.
1999;
2 (2)
103-106
-
5
Drummond M F, Jefferson T O.
Guidelines for authors and peer reviewers of economic submissions to the BMJ. The BMJ Economic Evaluation Working Party.
BMJ.
1996;
313
275-283
-
6
Freund D A, Dittus R S.
Principles in pharmacoeconomic analysis of drug therapy.
PharmacoEconomics.
1992;
1 (1)
20-32
-
7 Drummond M F, O’Brien B, Stoddart G L, Torrance G W. Critical assessment of economic evaluation. In: Drummond MF OBSGTG, editor Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. Oxford; Oxford University Press 1997: 28-51
-
8
Elixhauser A.
Health Care cost benefit and cost-effectiveness analysis (cost benefit analysis/cost effectiveness analysis) From 1979 to 1990: a bibliography.
Medical Care.
1993;
31 (suppl.)
JS1-JS11
-
9
Elixhauser A, Halpern M, Schmier J, Luce B R.
Health care CBA and CEA from 1991 to 1996: an updated bibliography.
Med Care.
1998;
36
MS1-MS9
-
10
Udvarhelyi I S, Colditz G A, Rai A, Epstein A M.
Cost-effectiveness and cost-benefit analyses in the medical literature. Are the methods being used correctly?.
Ann Int Med.
1992;
116
238-244
-
11
Jefferson T, Demicheli V.
Quality of economic evaluations in health care. It is time for action to ensure higher methodological quality.
BMJ.
2002;
324
313-314
-
12
Petrou S, Henderson J, Roberts T, Martin M A.
Recent economic evaluations of antenatal screening: a systematic review and critique.
J Med Screening.
2000;
7
59-73
-
13
Jefferson T, Smith R, Yunni Y, Drummond M F, Pratt M, Gale R.
Evaluating the BMJ Guidelines for Economic submissions.
JAMA.
1998;
280 (3)
275-277
-
14
Moher D, Schulz K F, Altman D G, Lepage L.
The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomised trials.
Lancet.
2001;
357
1191-1194
-
15
Williams A H.
The cost-benefit approach.
Br Med Bull.
1974;
30
252-256
-
16 Commonwealth Department of Health Housing and Community Services. Guidelines for the pharmaceutical Industry on preparations of submissions to the pharmaceutical benefits advisory committee. Australian Government Publishing Service 1992
-
17
Adams M E, McCall N T, Gray D T, Orza M J, Chalmers T C.
Economic analysis in randomised control trials.
Med Care.
1992;
30
231-238
-
18 Ministry of Health (Ontario). Ontario guidelines for economic analysis of pharmaceutical products. Ministry of Health 1994
-
19 Canadian Coordinating Ofice for Health Technology Assessment. Guidelines for economic evaluation of pharmaceuticals: Canada. CCOHTA 1994
-
20 Brecht J G, Jenke A, Köhler M E, Harder S. Empfehlungen der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Kölnische Pharmakologie und Therapie zur Durchführung und Bewertung pharmako-ökonomischer Studien. In: Kori-Lindner (Hrsg) Pharmakoökonomie in Deutschland. Aulendorf; Editio Cantor 1995: 211-224
-
21
Mason J.
Reporting Guidelines for economic studies.
Health Economics.
1995;
4
85-94
-
22 Task force on Principles of Economic analysis of Health Care Technology. Economic analysis of Health Care Technology. A report on principles. Ann Int Med 1995 123: 61-70
-
23
Weinstein M C, Siegel J E, Gold M R, Kamlet M S, Russell L B.
Recommendation of the Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine.
JAMA.
1996;
276
1753-1758
-
24 Gold M R, Siegel J E, Russell L B, Weinstein M C. Cost effectiveness in health. Oxford; Oxford University Press 1996
-
25 Hannoveraner Konsensusgruppe. Deutsche Empfehlungen zur gesundheitsökonomischen Evaluation - Revidierte Fassung des Hannoveraner Konsens. Gesundheitsökonomie & Qualitätsmanagement 1999 4: A62-A65
Dr. med. Christina Rogalski
Klinik für Dermatologie, Venerologie und Allergologie
Stephanstraße 11 · 04103 Leipzig
Email: christina.rogalski@medizin.uni-leipzig.de
