Source 5
Summarising economic evaluations in systematic reviews: a new approach
Nixon, J., Khan, K., and Kleijnen, J. (2001, June 30). Summarising economic evaluations in systematic reviews: a new approach. British Medical Journal, 322.
Nixon, J., Khan, K., and Kleijnen, J. (2001, June 30). Summarising economic evaluations in systematic reviews: a new approach. British Medical Journal, 322.
Cost Utility Analysis
Purpose
This article explores different methods of analysis which include cost utility and provides insight on different ways to utilize and communicate the data.
Strengths and Weaknesses
- Uses clinical and economic evidence.
- Articulates reviews and findings.
- Utilizes different methods to report data.
Weaknesses:
- Is not clear and utilitarian in summarizing data.
- Requires re-tooling.
- Is not well established as a reporting method.
Description
The article did not explain or address the CUA method with any detail. The focus of the paper is on the post-analytical reporting methods. Although CUA and similar tools are used to determine quantitative figures, the authors state that there should be clearer and more decision-maker-friendly tables or results to articulate the findings.
Uses
Utility analysis methods, such as CUA, are ways of producing a value which can be used by decision-makers to best determine courses of action. Summarizes economic evaluations and presents options to clinicians and policy makers.
Comparison
This paper surpasses the basics of using CUA and moves on to discussing reporting methods once the data has been determined. Its function would be best geared towards personnel who are involved in presenting information to decision-makers, or those who may be required to interpret data that is presented to them.
This paper surpasses the basics of using CUA and moves on to discussing reporting methods once the data has been determined. Its function would be best geared towards personnel who are involved in presenting information to decision-makers, or those who may be required to interpret data that is presented to them.
Most Informative
The most informative element of this paper is the graphical demonstration of the different methods to present economically analyzed data. Additionally, the authors present theories and techniques which may benefit decision-makers, or others involved in the process, in deciphering the analysis presented to them.
The most informative element of this paper is the graphical demonstration of the different methods to present economically analyzed data. Additionally, the authors present theories and techniques which may benefit decision-makers, or others involved in the process, in deciphering the analysis presented to them.
Source Author
John Nixon is a professor at the University of York and also serves as a freelance health economist. Mr. Nixon has a history of serving as a developer and manager of health economic review projects such as the NHS Economic Evaluation Database and the European Network of Health Economic Evaluation Database. Mr. Nixon has over 15 years in post-graduate experience in the field of health economics. As the author of this article, Nixon and his co-authors Khalid Khan and Jos Kleijnen have extensive education and knowledge regarding the subject matter and are very reliable sources regarding the reporting methods of CUA and other economic evaluation tools.
Source Reliability
According to the Dax Norman Trust Evaluation Worksheet for online sources, the source has a High Reliability rating.
Sources Cited
The author of the commentary listed the following sources for further information:
- NHS Executive. Faster access to modern treatment: how NICE appraisal will work. In: London: NHS Executive, 1999.
- Nixon J, Stoykova B, Christie J, Glanville JM, Drummond MF, Kleijnen J. The UK NHS economic evaluation database: economic issues in evaluations of health technology. Int J Health Technol Assess 2000; 16: 1–12.
- Nixon J, Stoykova B, Christie J, Glanville JM, Kleijnen J, Drummond MF. NHS economic evaluation database for healthcare decision makers. BMJ 2000; 321: 32.
- NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. Undertaking systematic reviews of research on effectiveness. CRD's guidance for carrying out or commissioning reviews. 2nd ed. York: NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, 2000.
- Black WC. The CE plane: a graphic representation of cost-effectiveness. Med Decis Making 1990; 10: 212–214.
- Geisler E, Heller O, Birch S, Gaffni A. Cost-effectiveness and cost utility analyses: methods for the non-economic evaluation of healthcare programs and how we can do better. In: Geisler E, Heller O, ed. Managing technology in healthcare. Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic, 1996.
- Drummond MF, O'Brien B, Stoddart GL, Torrance GW. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999.
- Lister-Sharp D, McDonough M, Khan K, Kleijnen J. A rapid and systematic review of the effectiveness and cost effectiveness of taxanes used in the treatment of advanced breast and ovarian cancer. Health Technol Assess 2000; 4: 1–113.
- Browne G, Roberts J, Gafni A, Byrne C, Weir R, Majumdar B, et al. Economic evaluations of community-based care: lessons from twelve studies in Ontario. J Eval Clin Pract 1999; 5: 367–385.
- Kwaliteitsinstituut voor de gezondheidszorg CBO [Dutch Institute of Healthcare Improvement]. Guideline cholesterol. Utrecht: Kwaliteitsinstituut voor de gezondheidszorg CBO, 1997.
Critique Author
Mark L.
Mark L.
Mercyhurst College, Erie PA,
Advanced Analytic Techniques Course
January 26, 2011
It feels like you have captured much of the outlined information for a source critique, however, I'm curious how this source compares to your other sources. Was it better, worse, different, more helpful to your project? I still feel a little vague on the source. I'd look to adjust the formatting to bring more of the information into as much of the screen as possible to avoid scrolling confusion. The color scheme, font and basic format does look really sleek.
ReplyDelete