The European Network of Health Economic Evaluation Databases (EURO�NHEED) Project

Nixon, John; Ulmann, Philippe; Glanville, Julie; Boulenger, Stéphanie; Drummond, Michael; Pouvourville, Gérard de

doi:10.1007/s10198-003-0207-0

Cited by 7 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…As part of collaborative research between centres participating in the European Network of Health Economic Evaluation Databases (EURONHEED) project [1] it was considered desirable to develop a means for evaluating the transferability and generalisability of studies to be considered for inclusion in the seven databases that now comprise the EURONHEED hub [2]. This is because the value of published economic evaluations to other settings is determined by the methods and transparency in reporting, such that studies can either be judged to be generalisablein that no adjustments to the analysis are required-or transferable, meaning that local data (such as unit costs for included resources) can be substituted and the analysis reworked for the target setting or country.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Guidelines for completing the EURONHEED transferability information checklists

et al. 2008

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The structure and methods to complete and derive a quality score from the European Network of Health Economic Evaluation Databases (EURONHEED) transferability information checklists for published economic evaluations were reported and discussed in a previous paper (Boulenger et al. in Eur J Health Econ 6, 334-346, 2005). Within the same paper, the use of the checklists was illustrated through their application to a sample of economic evaluations conducted in France and UK. The transferability information subchecklist, consisting of 16 items from the original 42-point checklist, and methods used to derive it, were validated among 16 health economists across Europe participating in the EURONHEED project. Recent correspondence with other researchers, however, indicates that the checklists are now being utilised in empirical work and the methodology of assessing transferability and generalisability. This supplementary paper provides full details of the guidelines that have been developed and recently updated by the authors, such that the overall and subchecklists can be more widely and consistently completed and utilised. We also briefly discuss associated issues such as weighting of items in the checklists and give further clarifications regarding what we consider the most appropriate applications of the checklists to be.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Guidelines for completing the EURONHEED transferability information checklists

et al. 2008

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Given that the majority of studies are published in medical journals, and a further diffusion into medical subspecialty journals can be expected, responsibility of editors and peer-reviewers in the process of publishing is therefore essential [30,40,41]. Specialized health economic databases, such as the NHS-EED, OHE-HEED or the recently established European Network of Health Economic Evaluation Databases (EURONHEED) that include additional, standardized review of study methodology and data sources may become increasingly important tools to assess study quality after publication [42,43]. …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

HEE-GER: a systematic review of German economic evaluations of health care published 1990–2004

Schwappach

Boluarte

2007

BMC Health Serv Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundStudies published in non-English languages are systematically missing in systematic reviews of growth and quality of economic evaluations of health care. The aims of this study were: to characterize German evaluations, published in English or German-language, in terms of various key parameters; to investigate methods to derive quality-of-life weights in cost-utility studies; and to examine changes in study characteristics over the years.MethodsWe conducted a country-specific systematic review of the German and English-language literature of German economic evaluations (assessment of or application to the German health care system) published 1990–2004. Generic and specialized health economic databases were searched. Two independent reviewers verified fulfillment of inclusion criteria and extracted study characteristics.ResultsThe fulltexts of 730 articles were reviewed of which 283 fulfilled all entry criteria. 32% of included studies were published in German-language. 51% of studies evaluated pharmaceuticals and 63% were cost-effectiveness analyses. Economic appraisals concentrate on few disease categories and important health areas are strongly underrepresented. Declaration of sponsorship was associated with article language (49% English articles vs. 29% German articles, p < 0.001). The methodology used to obtain quality-of-life weights in published cost-utility studies was very diverse, poorly reported and most studies did not use German patients' or community health state valuations.ConclusionMany of the German-language evaluations included in our study are likely to be missing in international reviews and may be systematically different from English-language reviews from Germany. Lack of transparency and adherence to recommended reporting practices constitute a serious problem in German economic evaluations.

show abstract

“…NHS EED is under constant development to improve its usability to both researchers and decision-makers. This finding is evidenced by the involvement of NHS EED as a principal player in the newly established European Network of Health Economic Evaluation Databases (EURONHEED) project (10), coordinated by the Collège desÉconomistes de la Santé in Paris. EURONHEED is bringing together health economists from a total of seventeen countries around Europe, and this process will clearly help in the advancement of reviewing and disseminating economic evidence to the benefit of researchers.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The usefulness of the NHS Economic Evaluation Database to researchers undertaking technology assessment reviews

Nixon

Duffy

Armstrong

et al. 2004

Int J Technol Assess Health Care

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

NHS EED is a useful tool for a variety of tasks in the NICE/TAR process but not, unsurprisingly, as a replacement for understanding primary studies. There is, however, a need to reduce the impact of time lags between the publication of economic evaluations and the appearance of abstracts relating to them on NHS EED. The results will inform future developments of the NHS EED database, which should increase its usefulness to researchers.

show abstract

The European Network of Health Economic Evaluation Databases (EURO�NHEED) Project

Cited by 7 publications

References 5 publications

Guidelines for completing the EURONHEED transferability information checklists

Guidelines for completing the EURONHEED transferability information checklists

HEE-GER: a systematic review of German economic evaluations of health care published 1990–2004

The usefulness of the NHS Economic Evaluation Database to researchers undertaking technology assessment reviews

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About