Assessing the Quality of Pharmacoeconomic Studies in India: A Systematic Review
Objective:Objective: The aim of the study was to evaluate the quality of pharmacoeconomic studies based in India. Abstract: Methods:Methods: A literature search was conducted using PubMed, MEDLINE, EconLit, PsycInfo and Google Scholar to identify published work on pharmacoeconomics studies based in India. Articles were included if they were original studies that evaluated pharmaceuticals, were based in India and were conducted between 1990 and 2010. Two reviewers independently reviewed the articles using a subjective 10-point quality scale in addition to the 100-point Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES) questionnaire. Abstract: Results:Results: Twenty-nine articles published between 1998 and May 2010 were included in the review. The included articles were published in 23 different journals. Each article was written by an average of five authors. The mean subjective quality score of the 29 articles was 7.8 (standard deviation [SD] - 1.3) and the mean QHES scores for the complete pharmacoeconomic studies (n - 24) was 86 (SD - 6). The majority of authors resided in India (62%) at the time of publication and had a medical background (90%). The quality score was significantly (p ≤ 0.05) related to the country of residence of the primary author (non-India - higher) and the study design (randomized controlled trials - higher). Abstract: Conclusion:Conclusion: Although the overall quality scores were comparable to (e.g. Nigeria) or higher than (e.g. Zimbabwe) similar studies in other developing countries, key features such as an explicit study perspective and the use of sensitivity analyses were missing in about 40% of the articles. The need for economic evaluation of pharmaceuticals is imperative, especially in developing countries such as India as this helps decision makers allocate scarce resources in a justifiable manner.
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wkh:phecon:v:30:y:2012:i:9:p:749-762. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Dave Dustin)
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.