Potential sponsorship bias in cost-effectiveness analyses of healthcare interventions: A cross-sectional analysis

Objective: To examine the relationship between the funding source of cost-effectiveness analyses of healthcare interventions published in Spain and study conclusions. Design: Descriptive cross-sectional study. Location: Scientific literature databases (until December 2014). Participants (analysis un...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores: Catalá-López F, Ridao M
Tipo de recurso: artículo
Estado:Versión publicada
Fecha de publicación:2017
País:España
Institución:Fundación para el Fomento de la Investigación Sanitaria y Biomédica de la Comunitat Valenciana (FISABIO)
Repositorio:r-FISABIO. Repositorio Institucional de Producción Científica
OAI Identifier:oai:fisabio.fundanetsuite.com:p1544
Acceso en línea:https://fisabio.portalinvestigacion.com/publicaciones/1544
Access Level:acceso abierto
Palabra clave:Cost-effectiveness
Bias
Quality-adjusted life
years
Spain
id ES_d7f2a887e38cb04fee2d4d3b3239679c
oai_identifier_str oai:fisabio.fundanetsuite.com:p1544
network_acronym_str ES
network_name_str España
repository_id_str
spelling Potential sponsorship bias in cost-effectiveness analyses of healthcare interventions: A cross-sectional analysisCatalá-López FRidao MCost-effectivenessBiasQuality-adjusted lifeyearsSpainObjective: To examine the relationship between the funding source of cost-effectiveness analyses of healthcare interventions published in Spain and study conclusions. Design: Descriptive cross-sectional study. Location: Scientific literature databases (until December 2014). Participants (analysis units): Cohort of cost-effectiveness analysis of healthcare interventions published in Spain between 1989-2014 (n = 223) presenting quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) as the outcome measure. Main measurements: The relationship between qualitative conclusions of the studies and the type of funding source were established using Fisher's exact test in contingency tables. Distributions of the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios by source of funding in relation to hypothetical willingness to pay thresholds between (sic)30,000-(sic)50,000 per QALY were explored. Results: A total of 136 (61.0%) studies were funded by industry. The industry-funded studies were less likely to report unfavorable or neutral conclusions than studies non-funded by industry (2.2% vs. 23.0%; P<.0001), largely driven by studies evaluating drugs (0.9% vs. 21.4%; P<.0001). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios in studies funded by industry were more likely to be below the hypothetical willingness to pay threshold of (sic)30,000 (73.8% vs. 56.3%; P<.0001) and (sic)50,000 (89.4% vs. 68.2%; P<.0001) per QALY. Conclusions: This study reveals a potential sponsorship bias in cost-effectiveness analyses of healthcare interventions. Studies funded by industry could be favoring the efficiency profile of their products. (C) 2016 Elsevier Espana, S.L.U.EDICIONES DOYMA S A2017info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionhttps://fisabio.portalinvestigacion.com/publicaciones/1544Atencion PrimariaISSN: 02126567ISSNe: 15781275reponame:r-FISABIO. Repositorio Institucional de Producción Científicainstname:Fundación para el Fomento de la Investigación Sanitaria y Biomédica de la Comunitat Valenciana (FISABIO)Españolinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessoai:fisabio.fundanetsuite.com:p15442026-06-11T12:45:17Z
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Potential sponsorship bias in cost-effectiveness analyses of healthcare interventions: A cross-sectional analysis
title Potential sponsorship bias in cost-effectiveness analyses of healthcare interventions: A cross-sectional analysis
spellingShingle Potential sponsorship bias in cost-effectiveness analyses of healthcare interventions: A cross-sectional analysis
Catalá-López F
Cost-effectiveness
Bias
Quality-adjusted life
years
Spain
title_short Potential sponsorship bias in cost-effectiveness analyses of healthcare interventions: A cross-sectional analysis
title_full Potential sponsorship bias in cost-effectiveness analyses of healthcare interventions: A cross-sectional analysis
title_fullStr Potential sponsorship bias in cost-effectiveness analyses of healthcare interventions: A cross-sectional analysis
title_full_unstemmed Potential sponsorship bias in cost-effectiveness analyses of healthcare interventions: A cross-sectional analysis
title_sort Potential sponsorship bias in cost-effectiveness analyses of healthcare interventions: A cross-sectional analysis
dc.creator.none.fl_str_mv Catalá-López F
Ridao M
author Catalá-López F
author_facet Catalá-López F
Ridao M
author_role author
author2 Ridao M
author2_role author
dc.subject.none.fl_str_mv Cost-effectiveness
Bias
Quality-adjusted life
years
Spain
topic Cost-effectiveness
Bias
Quality-adjusted life
years
Spain
description Objective: To examine the relationship between the funding source of cost-effectiveness analyses of healthcare interventions published in Spain and study conclusions. Design: Descriptive cross-sectional study. Location: Scientific literature databases (until December 2014). Participants (analysis units): Cohort of cost-effectiveness analysis of healthcare interventions published in Spain between 1989-2014 (n = 223) presenting quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) as the outcome measure. Main measurements: The relationship between qualitative conclusions of the studies and the type of funding source were established using Fisher's exact test in contingency tables. Distributions of the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios by source of funding in relation to hypothetical willingness to pay thresholds between (sic)30,000-(sic)50,000 per QALY were explored. Results: A total of 136 (61.0%) studies were funded by industry. The industry-funded studies were less likely to report unfavorable or neutral conclusions than studies non-funded by industry (2.2% vs. 23.0%; P<.0001), largely driven by studies evaluating drugs (0.9% vs. 21.4%; P<.0001). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios in studies funded by industry were more likely to be below the hypothetical willingness to pay threshold of (sic)30,000 (73.8% vs. 56.3%; P<.0001) and (sic)50,000 (89.4% vs. 68.2%; P<.0001) per QALY. Conclusions: This study reveals a potential sponsorship bias in cost-effectiveness analyses of healthcare interventions. Studies funded by industry could be favoring the efficiency profile of their products. (C) 2016 Elsevier Espana, S.L.U.
publishDate 2017
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2017
dc.type.none.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.none.fl_str_mv https://fisabio.portalinvestigacion.com/publicaciones/1544
url https://fisabio.portalinvestigacion.com/publicaciones/1544
dc.language.none.fl_str_mv Español
language_invalid_str_mv Español
dc.rights.none.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv EDICIONES DOYMA S A
publisher.none.fl_str_mv EDICIONES DOYMA S A
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv Atencion Primaria
ISSN: 02126567
ISSNe: 15781275
reponame:r-FISABIO. Repositorio Institucional de Producción Científica
instname:Fundación para el Fomento de la Investigación Sanitaria y Biomédica de la Comunitat Valenciana (FISABIO)
instname_str Fundación para el Fomento de la Investigación Sanitaria y Biomédica de la Comunitat Valenciana (FISABIO)
reponame_str r-FISABIO. Repositorio Institucional de Producción Científica
collection r-FISABIO. Repositorio Institucional de Producción Científica
repository.name.fl_str_mv
repository.mail.fl_str_mv
_version_ 1869421054568431616
score 15,812429

Similares en LA Referencia