Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
BMC Health Services Research
Published in: BMC Health Services Research 1/2012

Open Access 01-12-2012 | Correspondence

Specific guidelines for assessing and improving the methodological quality of economic evaluations of newborn screening

Authors: Astrid Langer, Rolf Holle, Jürgen John

Published in: BMC Health Services Research | Issue 1/2012

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Economic evaluation of newborn screening poses specific methodological challenges. Amongst others, these challenges refer to the use of quality adjusted life years (QALYs) in newborns, and which costs and outcomes need to be considered in a full evaluation of newborn screening programmes. Because of the increasing scale and scope of such programmes, a better understanding of the methods of high-quality economic evaluations may be crucial for both producers/authors and consumers/reviewers of newborn screening-related economic evaluations. The aim of this study was therefore to develop specific guidelines designed to assess and improve the methodological quality of economic evaluations in newborn screening.

Methods

To develop the guidelines, existing guidelines for assessing the quality of economic evaluations were identified through a literature search, and were reviewed and consolidated using a deductive iterative approach. In a subsequent test phase, these guidelines were applied to various economic evaluations which acted as case studies.

Results

The guidelines for assessing and improving the methodological quality of economic evaluations in newborn screening are organized into 11 categories: “bibliographic details”, “study question and design”, “modelling”, “health outcomes”, “costs”, “discounting”, “presentation of results”, “sensitivity analyses”, “discussion”, “conclusions”, and “commentary”.

Conclusions

The application of the guidelines highlights important issues regarding newborn screening-related economic evaluations, and underscores the need for such issues to be afforded greater consideration in future economic evaluations. The variety in methodological quality detected by this study reveals the need for specific guidelines on the appropriate methods for conducting sound economic evaluations in newborn screening.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
Drummond MF, Sculpher MJ, Torrance GW, O'Brien BJ, Stoddart GL: Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. 2005, Oxford University Press, New York, 3
2.
Neumann PJ, Greenberg D, Olchanski NV, Stone PW, Rosen AB: Growth and quality of the cost-utility literature, 1976–2001. Value Health. 2005, 8 (1): 3-9. 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2005.04010.x.CrossRefPubMed
3.
Neumann PJ, Fang CH, Cohen JT: 30 years of pharmaceutical cost-utility analyses: growth, diversity and methodological improvement. Pharmacoeconomics. 2009, 27 (10): 861-872. 10.2165/11312720-000000000-00000.CrossRefPubMed
4.
Schwappach DL, Boluarte TA: HEE-GER: a systematic review of German economic evaluations of health care published 1990–2004. BMC Health Serv Res. 2007, 7: 7-10.1186/1472-6963-7-7.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
5.
Drummond M, Sculpher M: Common methodological flaws in economic evaluations. Med Care. 2005, 43 (7 Suppl): 5-14.PubMed
6.
7.
Drummond MF, Jefferson TO: Guidelines for authors and peer reviewers of economic submissions to the BMJ. The BMJ Economic Evaluation Working Party. BMJ. 1996, 313 (7052): 275-283. 10.1136/bmj.313.7052.275.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
8.
Evers S, Goossens M, de Vet H, van Tulder M, Ament A: Criteria list for assessment of methodological quality of economic evaluations: Consensus on Health Economic Criteria. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2005, 21 (2): 240-245.PubMed
9.
Centre for Reviews and Dissemination: Systematic reviews: CRD's guidance for undertaking reviews in health care. 2009, University of York, York
10.
Mittmann N, Evans WK, Rocchi A, Longo CJ, Au HJ, Husereau D, Leighl N, Isogai P, Krahn M, Peacock S, et al: Addendum to CADTH’s Guidelines for the Economic Evaluation of Health Technologies: Specific Guidance for Oncology Products. 2009, Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health, Ottawa
11.
Ungar WJ, Gerber A: The uniqueness of child health and challenges to measuring costs and consequences. Economic Evaluation in Child Health. Edited by: Ungar WJ. 2009, Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRef
12.
Grosse SD: Economic evaluations of newborn screening. Economic Evaluation in Child Health. Edited by: Ungar WJ. 2009, Oxford University Press, Oxford
13.
Norman R, Haas M, Wilcken B: International perspectives on the cost-effectiveness of tandem mass spectrometry for rare metabolic conditions. Health Policy. 2009, 89 (3): 252-260. 10.1016/j.healthpol.2008.08.003.CrossRefPubMed
14.
Luce BR, Elixhauser A: Standards for Socioeconomic Evaluation of Health Care Products and Services. 1990, Springer, Berlin, HeidelbergCrossRef
15.
Gold MR, Russell LB, Siegel JE, Weinstein MC: Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. 1996, Oxford University Press, Oxford
16.
Weinstein MC, O'Brien B, Hornberger J, Jackson J, Johannesson M, McCabe C, Luce BR: Principles of good practice for decision analytic modeling in health-care evaluation: report of the ISPOR Task Force on Good Research Practices–Modeling Studies. Value Health. 2003, 6 (1): 9-17. 10.1046/j.1524-4733.2003.00234.x.CrossRefPubMed
17.
Ramsey S, Willke R, Briggs A, Brown R, Buxton M, Chawla A, Cook J, Glick H, Liljas B, Petitti D, et al: Good research practices for cost-effectiveness analysis alongside clinical trials: the ISPOR RCT-CEA Task Force report. Value Health. 2005, 8 (5): 521-533. 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2005.00045.x.CrossRefPubMed
18.
Chiou CF, Hay JW, Wallace JF, Bloom BS, Neumann PJ, Sullivan SD, Yu HT, Keeler EB, Henning JM, Ofman JJ: Development and validation of a grading system for the quality of cost-effectiveness studies. Med Care. 2003, 41 (1): 32-44. 10.1097/00005650-200301000-00007.CrossRefPubMed
19.
Siebert U, Behrend C, Mühlberger N, Wasem J, Greiner W, Graf von der Schulenburg JM, Welte R, Leidl R: Entwicklung eines Kriterienkataloges zur Beschreibung und Bewertung ökonomischer Evaluationsstudien in Deutschland. Approaches and methods of economic evaluation in health care - an international perspective. Edited by: Leidl R, Graf von der Schulenburg JM, Wasem J. 1999, Nomos, Baden-Baden, 156-170.
20.
Graf von der Schulenburg JM, Greiner W, Jost F, Klusen N, Kubin M, Leidl R, Mittendorf T, Rebscher H, Schoeffski O, Vauth C, et al: German recommendations on health economic evaluation: third and updated version of the Hanover Consensus. Value Health. 2008, 11 (4): 539-544. 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2007.00301.x.CrossRefPubMed
21.
Philips Z, Bojke L, Sculpher M, Claxton K, Golder S: Good practice guidelines for decision-analytic modelling in health technology assessment: a review and consolidation of quality assessment. Pharmacoeconomics. 2006, 24 (4): 355-371. 10.2165/00019053-200624040-00006.CrossRefPubMed
22.
National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence: Updated guide to the methods of technology appraisal - June 2008. 2008, National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, London
23.
Schnell-Inderst P, Kunze S, Hessel F, Grill E, Siebert U, Nickisch A, von Voss H, Wasem J: Screening of the hearing of newborns - Update. GMS Health Technol Assess. 2006, 2: Doc20.PubMedPubMedCentral
24.
Merlin T, Hedayati H, Sullivan T, Buckley E, Newton S, Hodgkinson B, Bywood P, Jenner F, Moss J, Hiller JE: Universal neonatal hearing screening. MSAC reference 17 Assessment report. 2007, MSAC, Canberra
25.
Schopflocher D, Corabian P, Eng K, Lier D: Screening Newborns for Hearing. 2007, Institute of Health Economics, Alberta
26.
Tran K, Banerjee S, Li H, Noorani HZ, Mensinkai S, Dooley K: Newborn screening for medium chain acyl~CoA dehydrogenase deficiency using tandem mass spectrometry: clinical and cost-effectiveness [Technology report no 62]. 2006, Canadian Coordinating Office for Health Technology Assessment, Ottawa
27.
Pandor A, Eastham J, Beverley C, Chilcott J, Paisley S: Clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of neonatal screening for inborn errors of metabolism using tandem mass spectrometry: a systematic review. Health Technol Assess. 2004, iii (12): 1-121.
28.
Prosser LA, Grosse SD, Kemper AR, Tarini BA, Perrin JM: Decision analysis, economic evaluation, and newborn screening: challenges and opportunities. Genet Med. 2012 Apr 5, Epub ahead of print PubMed PMID: 22481131-10.1038/gim.2012.24.
29.
Philips Z, Ginnelly L, Sculpher M, Claxton K, Golder S, Riemsma R, Woolacoot N, Glanville J: Review of guidelines for good practice in decision-analytic modelling in health technology assessment. Health Technol Assess. 2004, 8 (36): iii-iv. ix-xi, 1–158CrossRefPubMed
30.
Ungar WJ: Challenges in Health State Valuation in Paediatric Economic Evaluation: Are QALYs Contraindicated?. Pharmacoeconomics. 2011, 29 (8): 641-652. 10.2165/11591570-000000000-00000.CrossRefPubMed
31.
Sung L, Petrou S, Ungar WJ: Measurement of health utilities in children. Economic Evaluation in Child Health. Edited by: Ungar WJ. 2009, Oxford University Press, Oxford
32.
Tranmer JE, Guerriere DN, Ungar WJ, Coyte PC: Valuing patient and caregiver time: a review of the literature. Pharmacoeconomics. 2005, 23 (5): 449-459. 10.2165/00019053-200523050-00005.CrossRefPubMed
33.
Johns B, Baltussen R, Hutubessy R: Programme costs in the economic evaluation of health interventions. Cost Eff Resour Alloc. 2003, 1 (1): 1-10.1186/1478-7547-1-1.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
34.
Meltzer D: Accounting for future costs in medical cost-effectiveness analysis. J Health Econ. 1997, 16 (1): 33-64. 10.1016/S0167-6296(96)00507-3.CrossRefPubMed
35.
Nyman JA: Should the consumption of survivors be included as a cost in cost-utility analysis?. Health Econ. 2004, 13 (5): 417-427. 10.1002/hec.850.CrossRefPubMed
36.
Van Baal PH, Feenstra TL, Hoogenveen RT, de Wit GA, Brouwer WB: Unrelated medical care in life years gained and the cost utility of primary prevention: in search of a 'perfect' cost-utility ratio. Health Econ. 2007, 16 (4): 421-433. 10.1002/hec.1181.CrossRefPubMed
37.
Van Baal PH, Wong A, Slobbe LC, Polder JJ, Brouwer WB, de Wit GA: Standardizing the inclusion of indirect medical costs in economic evaluations. Pharmacoeconomics. 2011, 29 (3): 175-187. 10.2165/11586130-000000000-00000.CrossRefPubMed
38.
Rappange DR, Brouwer WB, Rutten FF, van Baal PH: Lifestyle intervention: from cost savings to value for money. J Public Health (Oxf). 2010, 32 (3): 440-447. 10.1093/pubmed/fdp079.CrossRef
39.
Liljas B, Karlsson GS, Stalhammar NO: On future non-medical costs in economic evaluations. Health Econ. 2008, 17 (5): 579-591. 10.1002/hec.1279.CrossRefPubMed
40.
Claxton K, Paulden M, Gravelle H, Brouwer W, Culyer AJ: Discounting and decision making in the economic evaluation of health-care technologies. Health Econ. 2011, 20 (1): 2-15. 10.1002/hec.1612.CrossRefPubMed
41.
Schad M, John J: Towards a social discount rate for the economic evaluation of health technologies in Germany: an exploratory analysis. Eur J Health Econ. 2012, 13 (2): 127-144. 10.1007/s10198-010-0292-9.CrossRefPubMed
42.
Grosse SD: Cost-effectiveness as a criterion for newborn screening policy decisions. Ethics and Newborn Genetic Screening: New Technologies, New Challenges. Edited by: Baily MA, Murray TH. 2009, John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, 58-88.
43.
Welte R, Feenstra T, Jager H, Leidl R: A decision chart for assessing and improving the transferability of economic evaluation results between countries. Pharmacoeconomics. 2004, 22 (13): 857-876. 10.2165/00019053-200422130-00004.CrossRefPubMed
44.
Wilcken B: Ethical issues in newborn screening and the impact of new technologies. Eur J Pediatr. 2003, 162 (Suppl 1): S62-S66.CrossRefPubMed
45.
Brock DW: Cost-Effectiveness and Disability Discrimination. Econ Philos. 2009, 25 (1): 27-47. 10.1017/S0266267108002265.CrossRef
46.
Baily MA, Murray TH: Ethics, evidence, and cost in newborn screening. Hastings Cent Rep. 2008, 38 (3): 23-31. 10.1353/hcr.0.0009.CrossRefPubMed
47.
Centre for Reviews and Dissemination: NHS ECONOMIC EVALUATION DATABASE HANDBOOK. 2007, University of York, York
48.
Böttcher P, Gramss M, Euler HA, Neumann K: Cost analysis of a universal newborn hearing screening for clinics using the State of Hesse as an example. HNO. 2009, 57 (1): 21-28. 10.1007/s00106-008-1879-7.CrossRefPubMed
49.
Boshuizen HC, van der Lem GJ, Kauffman-de Boer MA, van Zanten GA, Oudesluys-Murphy AM, Verkerk PH: Costs of different strategies for neonatal hearing screening: a modelling approach. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed. 2001, 85 (3): F177-F181. 10.1136/fn.85.3.F177.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
50.
Dort JC, Tobolski C, Brown D: Screening strategies for neonatal hearing loss: Which test is best?. J Otolaryngol. 2000, 29 (4): 206-210.PubMed
51.
Gorga MP, Preissler K, Simmons J, Walker L, Hoover B: Some issues relevant to establishing a universal newborn hearing screening program. J Am Acad Audiol. 2001, 12 (2): 101-112.PubMed
52.
Grill E, Uus K, Hessel F, Davies L, Taylor RS, Wasem J, Bamford J: Neonatal hearing screening: modelling cost and effectiveness of hospital- and community-based screening. BMC Health Serv Res. 2006, 6: 14-10.1186/1472-6963-6-14.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
53.
Heinemann M, Bohnert A: Hearing screening in newborn infants. Comparative studies and cost analysis with different instruments. Laryngorhinootologie. 2000, 79 (8): 453-458. 10.1055/s-2000-5911.CrossRefPubMed
54.
Iley KL, Addis RJ: Impact of technology choice on service provision for universal newborn hearing screening within a busy district hospital. J Perinatol. 2000, 20 (8 Pt 2): S122-S127.CrossRefPubMed
55.
Kezirian EJ, White KR, Yueh B, Sullivan SD: Cost and cost-effectiveness of universal screening for hearing loss in newborns. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2001, 124 (4): 359-367. 10.1067/mhn.2001.113945.CrossRefPubMed
56.
Lemons J, Fanaroff A, Stewart EJ, Bentkover JD, Murray G, Diefendorf A: Newborn hearing screening: costs of establishing a program. J Perinatol. 2002, 22 (2): 120-124. 10.1038/sj.jp.7210618.CrossRefPubMed
57.
Vohr BR, Oh W, Stewart EJ, Bentkover JD, Gabbard S, Lemons J, Papile LA, Pye R: Comparison of costs and referral rates of 3 universal newborn hearing screening protocols. J Pediatr. 2001, 139 (2): 238-244. 10.1067/mpd.2001.115971.CrossRefPubMed
58.
Lin HC, Shu MT, Lee KS, Lin HY, Lin G: Reducing false positives in newborn hearing screening program: how and why. Otol Neurotol. 2007, 28 (6): 788-792. 10.1097/MAO.0b013e3180cab754.CrossRefPubMed
59.
Lin HC, Shu MT, Lee KS, Ho GM, Fu TY, Bruna S, Lin G: Comparison of hearing screening programs between one step with transient evoked otoacoustic emissions (TEOAE) and two steps with TEOAE and automated auditory brainstem response. Laryngoscope. 2005, 115 (11): 1957-1962. 10.1097/01.mlg.0000178323.06183.3e.CrossRefPubMed
60.
Keren R, Helfand M, Homer C, McPhillips H, Lieu TA: Projected cost-effectiveness of statewide universal newborn hearing screening. Pediatrics. 2002, 110 (5): 855-864. 10.1542/peds.110.5.855.CrossRefPubMed
61.
Hessel F, Grill E, Schnell-Inderst P, Siebert U, Kunze S, Nickisch A, von Voss H, Wasem J: Economic evaluation of newborn hearing screening: modelling costs and outcomes. Ger Med Sci. 2003, 1: Doc09.PubMedPubMedCentral
62.
Kemper AR, Downs SM: A cost-effectiveness analysis of newborn hearing screening strategies. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2000, 154 (5): 484-488.CrossRefPubMed
63.
Uus K, Bamford J, Taylor R: An analysis of the costs of implementing the National Newborn Hearing Screening Programme in England. J Med Screen. 2006, 13 (1): 14-19. 10.1258/096914106776179764.CrossRefPubMed
64.
Neumann K, Berger R, Euler HA, Ahr A, Gall V: Brainstem response methods for neonatal hearing screening]. Zeitschrift für Audiologie. 2004, 43 (1): 10-21.
65.
Lenarz T, Reuter G, Buser K, Altenhofen L: Modellprogramm Verbesserung der Früherfassung von Hörstörungen im Kindesalter. Machbarkeits- und Evaluationsstudie zum Einsatz otoakustischer Emissionen bei Neugeborenen. 2007, Deutscher Ärzte-Verlag, Köln
66.
Wolff R, Hommerich J, Riemsma R, Antes G, Lange S, Kleijnen J: Hearing screening in newborns: systematic review of accuracy, effectiveness, and effects of interventions after screening. Arch Dis Child. 2010, 95 (2): 130-135. 10.1136/adc.2008.151092.CrossRefPubMed
67.
Institut für Qualität und Wirtschaftlichkeit im Gesundheitswesen: Newborn hearing screening in the detection of hearing impairment. 2007, Institut für Qualität und Wirtschaftlichkeit im Gesundheitswesen (IQWiG), Köln
68.
Nelson HD, Bougatsos C, Nygren P: Universal newborn hearing screening: systematic review to update the 2001 US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation. Pediatrics. 2008, 122 (1): e266-e276. 10.1542/peds.2007-1422.CrossRefPubMed
69.
Krauth C: Health economic analysis of screening. GMS Curr Top Otorhinolaryngology - Head Neck Surg. 2008, 7: 1-14.
70.
Autti-Rämö I, Makela M, Sintonen H, Koskinen H, Laajalahti L, Halila R, Kaariainen H, Lapatto R, Nanto-Salonen K, Pulkki K, et al: Expanding screening for rare metabolic disease in the newborn: an analysis of costs, effect and ethical consequences for decision-making in Finland. Acta Paediatr. 2005, 94 (8): 1126-1136. 10.1080/08035250510029497.CrossRefPubMed
71.
Tran K, Banerjee S, Li H, Noorani HZ, Mensinkai S, Dooley K: Clinical efficacy and cost-effectiveness of newborn screening for medium chain acyl-CoA dehydrogenase deficiency using tandem mass spectrometry. Clin Biochem. 2007, 40 (3–4): 235-241.CrossRefPubMed
72.
Van der Hilst CS, Derks TG, Reijngoud DJ, Smit GP, TenVergert EM: Cost-effectiveness of neonatal screening for medium chain acyl-CoA dehydrogenase deficiency: the homogeneous population of The Netherlands. J Pediatr. 2007, 151 (2): 115-120. 10.1016/j.jpeds.2007.03.013. 120 e111-113CrossRefPubMed
73.
Venditti LN, Venditti CP, Berry GT, Kaplan PB, Kaye EM, Glick H, Stanley CA: Newborn screening by tandem mass spectrometry for medium-chain Acyl-CoA dehydrogenase deficiency: a cost-effectiveness analysis. Pediatrics. 2003, 112 (5): 1005-1015. 10.1542/peds.112.5.1005.CrossRefPubMed
74.
Pandor A, Eastham J, Chilcott J, Paisley S, Beverley C: Economics of tandem mass spectrometry screening of neonatal inherited disorders. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2006, 22 (3): 321-326.CrossRefPubMed
75.
Schoen EJ, Baker JC, Colby CJ, To TT: Cost-benefit analysis of universal tandem mass spectrometry for newborn screening. Pediatrics. 2002, 110 (4): 781-786. 10.1542/peds.110.4.781.CrossRefPubMed
76.
Carroll AE, Downs SM: Comprehensive cost-utility analysis of newborn screening strategies. Pediatrics. 2006, 117 (5 Pt 2): S287-S295.PubMed
77.
Insinga RP, Laessig RH, Hoffman GL: Newborn screening with tandem mass spectrometry: examining its cost-effectiveness in the Wisconsin Newborn Screening Panel. J Pediatr. 2002, 141 (4): 524-531. 10.1067/mpd.2002.128116.CrossRefPubMed
78.
Cipriano LE, Rupar CA, Zaric GS: The cost-effectiveness of expanding newborn screening for up to 21 inherited metabolic disorders using tandem mass spectrometry: results from a decision-analytic model. Value Health. 2007, 10 (2): 83-97. 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2006.00156.x.CrossRefPubMed
79.
Hamers FF, Scemama O, Rumeau-Pichon C: Evaluation de l’extension du dépistage néonatal à une ou plusieurs erreurs innées du métabolisme par spectrométrie de masse en tandem. 1er volet: déficit en MCAD. 2011, Haute Autorite de Sante (HAS), Saint-Denis La Plaine Cedex
80.
Prosser LA, Kong CY, Rusinak D, Waisbren SL: Projected costs, risks, and benefits of expanded newborn screening for MCADD. Pediatrics. 2010, 125 (2): e286-e294. 10.1542/peds.2009-0605.CrossRefPubMed
81.
Norman R, Haas M, Chaplin M, Joy P, Wilcken B: Economic evaluation of tandem mass spectrometry newborn screening in Australia. Pediatrics. 2009, 123 (2): 451-457. 10.1542/peds.2008-0911.CrossRefPubMed
82.
Griebsch I, Coast J, Brown J: Quality-adjusted life-years lack quality in pediatric care: a critical review of published cost-utility studies in child health. Pediatrics. 2005, 115 (5): e600-e614. 10.1542/peds.2004-2127.CrossRefPubMed
83.
Petrou S: Methodological issues raised by preference-based approaches to measuring the health status of children. Health Econ. 2003, 12 (8): 697-702. 10.1002/hec.775.CrossRefPubMed
84.
Prosser LA, Hammitt JK, Keren R: Measuring health preferences for use in cost-utility and cost-benefit analyses of interventions in children: theoretical and methodological considerations. Pharmacoeconomics. 2007, 25 (9): 713-726. 10.2165/00019053-200725090-00001.CrossRefPubMed
85.
Carroll AE, Downs SM: Improving decision analyses: parent preferences (utility values) for pediatric health outcomes. J Pediatr. 2009, 155 (1): 21-25. 10.1016/j.jpeds.2009.01.040. 25 e21-25CrossRefPubMed
86.
Finnell SM, Carroll AE, Downs SM: Application of classic utilities to published pediatric cost-utility studies. Acad Pediatr. 2012, 12 (3): 219-228. 10.1016/j.acap.2011.09.003.CrossRefPubMed
87.
Grosse SD, Prosser LA, Asakawa K, Feeny D: QALY weights for neurosensory impairments in pediatric economic evaluations: case studies and a critique. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2010, 10 (3): 293-308. 10.1586/erp.10.24.CrossRefPubMed
88.
Wille N, Badia X, Bonsel G, Burstrom K, Cavrini G, Devlin N, Egmar AC, Greiner W, Gusi N, Herdman M, et al: Development of the EQ-5D-Y: a child-friendly version of the EQ-5D. Qual Life Res. 2010, 19 (6): 875-886. 10.1007/s11136-010-9648-y.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
89.
Ravens-Sieberer U, Wille N, Badia X, Bonsel G, Burstrom K, Cavrini G, Devlin N, Egmar AC, Gusi N, Herdman M, et al: Feasibility, reliability, and validity of the EQ-5D-Y: results from a multinational study. Qual Life Res. 2010, 19 (6): 887-897. 10.1007/s11136-010-9649-x.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
90.
Ungar WJ, Santos MT: The Pediatric Quality Appraisal Questionnaire: an instrument for evaluation of the pediatric health economics literature. Value Health. 2003, 6 (5): 584-594. 10.1046/j.1524-4733.2003.65253.x.CrossRefPubMed
91.
Ungar WJ, Santos MT: Quality appraisal of pediatric health economic evaluations. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2005, 21 (2): 203-210.PubMed
92.
Wilcken B: Newborn screening for all identifiable disorders with tandem mass spectrometry is cost effective: the negative case. Ann Acad Med Singapore. 2008, 37 (12 Suppl): 36-33.PubMed
93.
Therrell BL, Buechner C: Newborn screening for all identifiable disorders with tandem mass spectrometry is cost effective: supporting arguments. Ann Acad Med Singapore. 2008, 37 (12 Suppl): 32-34.PubMed
94.
Boulenger S, Nixon J, Drummond M, Ulmann P, Rice S, de Pouvourville G: Can economic evaluations be made more transferable?. Eur J Health Econ. 2005, 6 (4): 334-346. 10.1007/s10198-005-0322-1.CrossRefPubMed
95.
Sculpher M, Fenwick E, Claxton K: Assessing quality in decision analytic cost-effectiveness models. A suggested framework and example of application. Pharmacoeconomics. 2000, 17 (5): 461-477. 10.2165/00019053-200017050-00005.CrossRefPubMed
96.
Stearns SC, Drummond M: Grading systems for cost-effectiveness studies: is the whole greater than the sum of the parts?. Med Care. 2003, 41 (1): 1-3. 10.1097/00005650-200301000-00001.CrossRefPubMed
97.
Thurston SJ, Craig D, Wilson P, Drummond MF: Increasing decision-makers’ access to economic evaluations: alternative methods of communicating the information. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2008, 24: 151-157.CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Specific guidelines for assessing and improving the methodological quality of economic evaluations of newborn screening
Authors
Astrid Langer
Rolf Holle
Jürgen John
Publication date
01-12-2012
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Health Services Research / Issue 1/2012
Electronic ISSN: 1472-6963
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-12-300

Other articles of this Issue 1/2012

BMC Health Services Research 1/2012 Go to the issue

Research article

The implementation of unit-based perinatal mortality audit in perinatal cooperation units in the northern region of the Netherlands

Research article

Validation of the disease burden morbidity assessment by self-report in a French-speaking population

Research article

An assessment of the Zimbabwe ministry of health and child welfare provider initiated HIV testing and counselling programme

Research article

Triumph of hope over experience: learning from interventions to reduce avoidable hospital admissions identified through an Academic Health and Social Care Network

Research article

Does Government subsidy for costs of medical and pharmaceutical services result in higher service utilization by older widowed women in Australia?

Research article

The relationship between quality of work life and turnover intention of primary health care nurses in Saudi Arabia