Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 1992 Apr;1(4):282-92.
doi: 10.2165/00019053-199201040-00005.

Meta-analysis and quality of evidence in the economic evaluation of drug trials

Affiliations

Meta-analysis and quality of evidence in the economic evaluation of drug trials

R J Simes et al. Pharmacoeconomics. 1992 Apr.

Abstract

Meta-analysis is an important part of assessing cost-effectiveness in that it may help determine which treatments are indeed effective and estimate the level of effectiveness of each. Meta-analysis uses the data from all the relevant trials and is a powerful tool for detecting effects too small to be picked up by individual trials. The assessment of quality of studies in a meta-analysis is critical, with priority needing to be given to high quality randomised studies. A written protocol, literature retrieval system, evaluation and selection criteria, choice of endpoints and ways to evaluate bias must all be pre-defined. Nevertheless, problems can arise when meta-analysis is used for cost-effectiveness analysis, due to variation in study medication protocols, duration of follow-up, and difficulties in interpreting patient subgroups and compliance. Despite being subject to the design flaws of both the trials analysed and the methods used in the analysis itself, meta-analysis provides a more objective and thorough means of evaluating effectiveness and hence the cost-effectiveness of treatments. Based on the meta-analysis evidence, we recommend that the current QALY league tables be split into an implementation table for clearly effective therapies, and a research priority table where the evidence of treatment effectiveness is less clear and more research is needed.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. Pharmacoeconomics. 1992 Feb;1(2):84-94 - PubMed
    1. J Chronic Dis. 1979;32(1-2):51-63 - PubMed
    1. Stat Med. 1986 Sep-Oct;5(5):411-20 - PubMed
    1. Biometrics. 1986 Jun;42(2):311-23 - PubMed
    1. Lancet. 1990 Mar 31;335(8692):765-74 - PubMed

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources