Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Guidelines for Pharmacoeconomic Studies

The Ways Forward

  • Guest Editorial
  • Guidelines for Pharmacoeconomic Studies
  • Published:
PharmacoEconomics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Canadian Coordinating Office for Health Technology Assessment (CCOHTA). Guidelines for economic evaluation of pharmaceuticals Ottawa, CCOHTA. 1994

    Google Scholar 

  2. Rovira J. Harmonization by consensus of the methodology for economic evaluation of health technologies io the European Union. Proposal for BIOMED I. Barcelona: Soikos, 1994

    Google Scholar 

  3. Drummond MF, Runen FFH, Brenna A, et al. Eronomic evaluation of pharmaceuticals: a European perspective. PharmacoEconomics 1993; 4: 173–86

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Drummond MF, Bnmdt A, Luce B, et al. Standardizing car nomic evaluati ons in heahh care: practice, problems and potential. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 1993; 9: 26–36

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Wells N. Economic evaluation of drugs: a UK pharmaceutical industry perspective. PharmacoEconomics 1992; 1: 14–9

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Drummorni MF. Issues in the conduct of economic evaluations of pharmaceutical products. PharmacoEconomics 1994; 6: 405–11

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Udvarhelyi IS, Colditz GA, Arti Rai AS, et al. Cost-effectiveness and cost-benefit analyses in the rnctIicall iteMure: are the methods being used corectly? Ann Imcm Mcd 1992; 116: 238–44

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Gerard K. Cost-utility in practice: a policy makes guide to the state of the art. Health Policy 1992; 21: 249–79

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Luce BR, Simpson K. Methods of cost-effectiveness analysis: areaS of consensus and debate. Washington DC: Battelle Medical Technology Assessment and Policy Research Center, 1493

    Google Scholar 

  10. Cox DR, Fitzpatrick R, Fletcher AE, et al. Quality of life assessment: can we keep it simple? J Royal Stat Soc 1991; 155: 353–92

    Google Scholar 

  11. Mehrez A, Gafni A. Healthy-years equivalents versus qualityadjusted life-years in pursuit of progress. Med Disc Making 1993; 13: 287–92

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Fryback DG. QALYs, HYEs and loss of innocence [editorial]. Med Decis Making 1993; 13: 271–2

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. O’Brien B, Drummond ME, Labelle R. In search of power and significance: issues in the design and analysis of stochastic economic appraissals. Med Care 1994; 32: 150–63

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Briggs AH, Sculpher MI, Buxton MI. Uncertainty in the economic evaluation of hea lth care technologics the role of sensitivity analysis. Health Econ 1994; 3: 95–104

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Kassirer IP, Angell M. The Journal’s policy on cost-effectiveness analyses [editorial]. N Engl J Med 1994; 331: 669–70

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Centre for Health Economics, University of York, Heslington, York, YO1 5DD, England

    Michael F. Drummond

Authors
  1. Michael F. Drummond
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Drummond, M.F. Guidelines for Pharmacoeconomic Studies. Pharmacoeconomics 6, 493–497 (1994). https://doi.org/10.2165/00019053-199406060-00002

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.2165/00019053-199406060-00002

Search

Navigation