IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ehl/lserod/66150.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Recommendations for benefit–risk assessment methodologies and visual representations

Author

Listed:
  • Hughes, David
  • Waddingham, E.
  • Mt-Isa, S.
  • Goginsky, Alesia
  • Chan, Edmond
  • Downey, Gerald
  • Hallgreen, C. E.
  • Hockley, K.S.
  • Juhaeri, J.
  • Lieftucht, Alfons
  • Metcalf, M.A.
  • Noel, R.A.
  • Phillips, L.D.
  • Ashby, Deborah
  • Micaleff, Alain

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this study is to draw on the practical experience from the PROTECT BR case studies and make recommendations regarding the application of a number of methodologies and visual representations for benefit–risk assessment. Methods Eight case studies based on the benefit–risk balance of real medicines were used to test various methodologies that had been identified from the literature as having potential applications in benefit–risk assessment. Recommendations were drawn up based on the results of the case studies. Results A general pathway through the case studies was evident, with various classes of methodologies having roles to play at different stages. Descriptive and quantitative frameworks were widely used throughout to structure problems, with other methods such as metrics, estimation techniques and elicitation techniques providing ways to incorporate technical or numerical data from various sources. Similarly, tree diagrams and effects tables were universally adopted, with other visualisations available to suit specific methodologies or tasks as required. Every assessment was found to follow five broad stages: (i) Planning, (ii) Evidence gathering and data preparation, (iii) Analysis, (iv) Exploration and (v) Conclusion and dissemination. Conclusions Adopting formal, structured approaches to benefit–risk assessment was feasible in real-world problems and facilitated clear, transparent decision-making. Prior to this work, no extensive practical application and appraisal of methodologies had been conducted using real-world case examples, leaving users with limited knowledge of their usefulness in the real world. The practical guidance provided here takes us one step closer to a harmonised approach to benefit–risk assessment from multiple perspectives.

Suggested Citation

  • Hughes, David & Waddingham, E. & Mt-Isa, S. & Goginsky, Alesia & Chan, Edmond & Downey, Gerald & Hallgreen, C. E. & Hockley, K.S. & Juhaeri, J. & Lieftucht, Alfons & Metcalf, M.A. & Noel, R.A. & Phill, 2016. "Recommendations for benefit–risk assessment methodologies and visual representations," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 66150, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
  • Handle: RePEc:ehl:lserod:66150
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/66150/
    File Function: Open access version.
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Mónica D. Oliveira & Inês Mataloto & Panos Kanavos, 2019. "Multi-criteria decision analysis for health technology assessment: addressing methodological challenges to improve the state of the art," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 20(6), pages 891-918, August.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    benefit–risk; decision-making; drug development; pharmacoepidemiology; regulation; FP7/2007-2013;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • J1 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Demographic Economics

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ehl:lserod:66150. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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 RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: LSERO Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/lsepsuk.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.