Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorStone, Patricia W.
dc.contributor.authorSchackman, Bruce R.
dc.contributor.authorNeukermans, Christopher P.
dc.contributor.authorOlchanski, Natalia V.
dc.contributor.authorGreenberg, Dan
dc.contributor.authorRosen, Allison B.
dc.contributor.authorNeumann, Peter J.
dc.date2022-08-11T08:10:44.000
dc.date.accessioned2022-08-23T17:18:05Z
dc.date.available2022-08-23T17:18:05Z
dc.date.issued2005-05-28
dc.date.submitted2011-01-14
dc.identifier.citationLancet Infect Dis. 2005 Jun;5(6):383-91. <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1473-3099(05)70142-0">Link to article on publisher's site</a>
dc.identifier.issn1473-3099 (Linking)
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/S1473-3099(05)70142-0
dc.identifier.pmid15919624
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14038/47778
dc.description.abstractThe purpose of this review is to understand infectious disease-related cost-utility analyses by describing published analyses, examining growth and quality trends over time, examining factors related to quality, and summarising standardised results. 122 cost-utility analyses and 352 cost-utility ratios were identified. Pharmaceutical interventions were most common (47.5%); three author groups accounted for 42.8% of pharmaceutical ratios. High-volume journals (three or more published cost-utility analyses) published higher quality analyses than low-volume journals (p<0.001). Use of probabilistic sensitivity analysis and discounting at 3% were more frequently found in the years after the US Public Health Service Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine recommendations (p<0.01). Median ratios varied from US13,500 dollars/quality-adjusted life year (QALY) for immunisations to US810,000 dollars/QALY for blood safety. Publication of infectious disease cost-utility analyses is increasing. The results of cost-utility analyses have important implications for the development of clinical guidelines and resource allocation decisions. More trained investigators and better peer-review processes are needed.
dc.language.isoen_US
dc.relation<a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&list_uids=15919624&dopt=Abstract">Link to Article in PubMed</a>
dc.relation.urlhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1473-3099(05)70142-0
dc.subjectAnti-Bacterial Agents
dc.subjectCommunicable Diseases
dc.subjectCost-Benefit Analysis
dc.subjectHumans
dc.subjectImmunization
dc.subjectPeriodicals as Topic
dc.subjectPublishing
dc.subject*Quality-Adjusted Life Years
dc.subjectTime Factors
dc.subjectBiostatistics
dc.subjectEpidemiology
dc.subjectHealth Services Research
dc.titleA synthesis of cost-utility analysis literature in infectious disease
dc.typeJournal Article
dc.source.journaltitleThe Lancet infectious diseases
dc.source.volume5
dc.source.issue6
dc.identifier.legacycoverpagehttps://escholarship.umassmed.edu/qhs_pp/896
dc.identifier.contextkey1729430
html.description.abstract<p>The purpose of this review is to understand infectious disease-related cost-utility analyses by describing published analyses, examining growth and quality trends over time, examining factors related to quality, and summarising standardised results. 122 cost-utility analyses and 352 cost-utility ratios were identified. Pharmaceutical interventions were most common (47.5%); three author groups accounted for 42.8% of pharmaceutical ratios. High-volume journals (three or more published cost-utility analyses) published higher quality analyses than low-volume journals (p<0.001). Use of probabilistic sensitivity analysis and discounting at 3% were more frequently found in the years after the US Public Health Service Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine recommendations (p<0.01). Median ratios varied from US13,500 dollars/quality-adjusted life year (QALY) for immunisations to US810,000 dollars/QALY for blood safety. Publication of infectious disease cost-utility analyses is increasing. The results of cost-utility analyses have important implications for the development of clinical guidelines and resource allocation decisions. More trained investigators and better peer-review processes are needed.</p>
dc.identifier.submissionpathqhs_pp/896
dc.contributor.departmentDepartment of Quantitative Health Sciences
dc.source.pages383-91


Files in this item

Thumbnail
Name:
Publisher version

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record