BMJ  2004;328:1536-1537 (26 June), doi:10.1136/bmj.38079.502326.AE (published 20 April 2004)

Paper

Delays in publication of cost utility analyses conducted alongside clinical trials: registry analysis

¹ Harvard Center for Risk Analysis, Department of Health Policy and Management, Harvard School of Public Health, 718 Huntington Avenue, Boston, MA 02115, USA Peter J Neumann associate professor of policy and decision sciences, ² Division of General Medicine and Primary Care, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, 330 Brookline Avenue, Rose 130, Boston, ³ Columbia University, 617 West 168th Street, New York, NY 10032, USA, ⁴ Massachusetts General Hospital, 55 Fruit Street, Weight Center S50-4th floor, Boston

The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below.

Introduction

Economic evaluations conducted alongside randomised controlled trials enable analysis of detailed, patient level data on efficacy, cost, and quality of life in a controlled setting. They can provide timely and reliable assessments of value for money, to inform decisions on coverage and reimbursement.^1-3

The BMJ recently decided to consider trial based economic evaluations for publication only if the clinical results are submitted to the journal as well.⁴ We assessed the extent to which cost utility analyses are conducted alongside trials, estimated the time lag between the publication of trials' clinical and economic results, and compared the characteristics of journals publishing the clinical trial data and the cost utility analyses.

Methods and results

We conducted a systematic search for original English language cost utility analyses published in 1976-2001 by using Medline and other electronic databases. Two readers independently reviewed each study and came to a consensus on whether the analysis was conducted alongside a . . . [Full text of this article]

Comment

CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    StumbleUpon    Technorati    What's this?

Relevant Article

Bias in published cost effectiveness studies: systematic review

Chaim M Bell, David R Urbach, Joel G Ray, Ahmed Bayoumi, Allison B Rosen, Dan Greenberg, and Peter J Neumann
BMJ 2006 332: 699-703. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

This article has been cited by other articles:

• Clyde, A. T., Bockstedt, L., Farkas, J. A., Jackson, C. (2008). Experience With Medicare's New Technology Add-On Payment Program. Health Aff (Millwood) 27: 1632-1641 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Matchar, D. B., Mark, D. B. (2008). Strategies for Incorporating Resource Allocation and Economic Considerations: American College of Chest Physicians Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines (8th Edition). Chest 133: 132S-140S [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Morrison, D. A. (2007). Reconstructing Evolution: New Mathematical and Computational Advances--Olivier Gascuel and Mike Steel (editors). 2007. Oxford University Press, Oxford. xxix + 318 pp. ISBN 978-0-19-920822-7 (ISBN-10 0-19-920822-0). {pound}39.50, $80.00 (hardback).. Syst Biol 56: 1022-1024 [Full text]  
• Vetter, T. R. (2007). The Application of Economic Evaluation Methods in the Chronic Pain Medicine Literature. Anesth. Analg. 105: 114-118 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Bell, C. M, Urbach, D. R, Ray, J. G, Bayoumi, A., Rosen, A. B, Greenberg, D., Neumann, P. J (2006). Bias in published cost effectiveness studies: systematic review. BMJ 332: 699-703 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Torgerson, D. J, Adamson, J., Cockayne, S., Dumville, J., Petherick, E. (2005). Submission to multiple journals: a method of reducing time to publication?. BMJ 330: 305-307 [Full text]  

Rapid Responses:

Read all Rapid Responses

Reporting of economic evaluations alongside clinical trials

Waseem Sharieff
bmj.com, 27 Jun 2004 [Full text]

Rapid publication cannot compensate for unreliable economic data

Damian G Walker, et al.
bmj.com, 14 Jul 2004 [Full text]

Further evidence on the delay

Boyka A Stoykova
bmj.com, 14 Oct 2004 [Full text]

Online poll

Find out more >>