[Skip to Content]
Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address 23.23.54.109. Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
[Skip to Content Landing]
Citations 0
Letters
March 15, 2000

Sources of Bias in the Economic Analysis of New Drugs

Author Affiliations
 

Phil B.FontanarosaMD, Deputy EditorIndividualAuthorStephen J.LurieMD, PhD, Fishbein FellowIndividualAuthor

JAMA. 2000;283(11):1423-1424. doi:10.1001/jama.283.11.1421

To the Editor: Mr Friedberg and colleagues1 take a systematic approach to identifying the characteristics of published cost studies. However, relying on study sponsorship as the dominant criterion for evaluating potential conflict of interest may be too simplistic. A more thorough review of methods, data inputs, assumptions, and publication sources and their impact on study conclusions is warranted. For example, prospective, randomized clinical studies (single center or multicenter) using actual use and cost data may be less biased than studies developed using decision analysis models. Additionally, some of the studies included in the analysis were not published in peer-reviewed journals. To combine heterogeneous samples in drawing conclusions is improper both in clinical research and the evaluation of conflict of interest.

First Page Preview View Large
First page PDF preview
First page PDF preview
×