publication . Article . 2015

How to estimate the health benefits of additional research and changing clinical practice.

Karl Claxton; Susan Griffin; Hendrik Koffijberg; Claire McKenna;
Open Access English
  • Published: 25 Nov 2015
  • Country: Netherlands
A simple extension of standard meta-analysis can provide quantitative estimates of the potential health benefits of further research and of implementing the findings of existing research, which can help inform research prioritisation and efforts to change clinical practice
ACM Computing Classification System: ComputerApplications_COMPUTERSINOTHERSYSTEMS
free text keywords: MYOCARDIAL-INFARCTION, TRIALS, TECHNOLOGIES, METAANALYSIS, INFORMATION, Health policy, Additional research, HRHIS, Health care, business.industry, business, Medicine, Nursing, Alternative medicine, medicine.medical_specialty, Clinical Practice, Research design, Cost–benefit analysis
Related Organizations
Download fromView all 3 versions
Article . 2015
Provider: NARCIS
Provider: UnpayWall

1 Claxton K. The irrelevance of inference: a decision-making approach to the stochastic evaluation of health care technologies. J Health Econ 1999;18:341-64. [OpenAIRE]

2 Sutton AJ, Abrams KR. Bayesian methods in meta-analysis and evidence synthesis. Stat Methods Med Res 2001;10:277-303.

3 Whitehead A. Meta-analysis of controlled clinical trials. John Wiley & Sons, 2002.

4 Claxton K, Palmer S, Longworth L, et al. Informing a decision framework for when NICE should recommend the use of health technologies only in the context of an appropriately designed programme of evidence development. Health Technol Assess 2012;16:1-323.

5 Colbourn TE, Asseburg C, Bojke L, et al. Preventive strategies for group B streptococcal and other bacterial infections in early infancy: cost efectiveness and value of information analyses. BMJ 2007;335:655. [OpenAIRE]

6 Claxton K, Grifin S, Kofijberg H, et al. Expected health benefits of additional evidence: principles, methods and applications. Research paper 83. Centre for Health Economics, University of York, 2013. [OpenAIRE]

7 Antman EM, Lau J, Kupelnick B, et al. A comparison of results of meta-analyses of randomized control trials and recommendations of clinical experts. Treatments for myocardial infarction. JAMA 1992;268:240-8. [OpenAIRE]

8 Boland A, Dundar Y, Bagust A, et al. Early thrombolysis for the treatment of acute myocardial infarction: a systematic review and economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess 2003;7:1-136. [OpenAIRE]

9 Lau J, Antman EM, Jimenez-Silva J, et al. Cumulative meta-analysis of therapeutic trials for myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med 1992;327:248-54. [OpenAIRE]

10 Yusuf S, Collins R, Peto R, et al. Intravenous and intracoronary bifrinolytic therapy in acute myocardial infarction: overview of results on mortality, reinfarction and side-efects from 33 randomized controlled trials. Eur Heart J 1985;6:556-85. [OpenAIRE]

11 Claxton KP, Martin S, Soares MO, et al. Methods for the estimation of the NICE cost efectiveness threshold. Health Technol Assess 2015;19.

12 Fleurence RL, Meltzer DO. Toward a science of research prioritization? The use of value of information by multidisciplinary stakeholder groups. Med Decis Making 2013;33:460-2. [OpenAIRE]

© BMJ Publishing Group Ltd 2015 Web appendix: Numerical example

Powered by OpenAIRE Research Graph
Any information missing or wrong?Report an Issue