Some reflections on the use of inappropriate comparators in CEA
Some reflections on the use of inappropriate comparators in CEA
复制标题
对CEA中使用不当比较器的一些思考
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2020
影响因子：
2.3
通讯作者：
J. Oliva
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
J. Sacristán;J. Abellan;T. Dilla;Javier Soto;J. Oliva
虽然比较国的选择是对成本效益分析结果影响最大的方面之一，但在国际方法准则中，这是争议较少的问题之一。列入一个不适当的比较国可能会对经济分析的结果和建议产生偏见。虽然文献中广泛描述了对成套相互排斥的备选方案进行成本效益分析的规则，但在实践中，这些规则几乎从未得到应用。此外，在许多情况下，标准治疗的效率从未得到评估;或者标准治疗相对于非效率选择而言已证明具有成本效益。在所有这些情况下，比较者可能位于效率边界之外，因此CEA的结果可能有偏差。本文件通过一些假设的例子，说明补充使用独立参考资料如何有助于查明潜在的不适当的比较者和资源利用效率低下的情况。
Although the choice of the comparator is one of the aspects with a highest effect on the results of cost-effectiveness analyses, it is one of the less debated issues in international methodological guidelines. The inclusion of an inappropriate comparator may introduce biases on the outcomes and the recommendations of an economic analysis. Although the rules for cost-effectiveness analyses of sets of mutually exclusive alternatives have been widely described in the literature, in practice, they are hardly ever applied. In addition, there are many cases where the efficiency of the standard of care has never been assessed; or where the standard of care has demonstrated to be cost-effective with respect to a non-efficient option. In all these cases the comparator may lie outside the efficiency frontier, so the result of the CEA may be biased. Through some hypothetical examples, the paper shows how the complementary use of an independent reference may help to identify potential inappropriate comparators and inefficient use of resources.
影响因子：
3.8
作者：
TENGS, TO;ADAMS, ME;GRAHAM, JD
通讯作者：
GRAHAM, JD