• HOME/
  • INFORMATION/
  • REFERENCES

References

Page last updated: September 2016

  1. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, Group P. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. J Clin Epidemiol 2009;62(10):1006–12.
  2. Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gotzsche PC, Ioannidis JP et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. J Clin Epidemiol 2009;62(10):e1–34.
  3. Higgins J, Altman D, Sterne J. Chapter 8: Assessing risk of bias in included studies. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, version 5.1. 0 [updated March 2011] 2011.
  4. Shea BJ, Grimshaw JM, Wells GA, Boers M, Andersson N, Hamel C et al. Development of AMSTAR: a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol 2007;7:10.
  5. Whiting P, Savovic J, Higgins JP, Caldwell DM, Reeves BC, Shea B et al. ROBIS: a new tool to assess risk of bias in systematic reviews was developed. J Clin Epidemiol 2016;69:225–34.
  6. Sterne J, Higgins J, Reeves B, on behalf of the development group for ROBINS-I. ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing Risk Of Bias In Non-randomized Studies of Interventions, version 7, March 2016.
  7. Eisenhauer EA, Therasse P, Bogaerts J, Schwartz LH, Sargent D, Ford R et al. New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1). Eur J Cancer 2009;45(2):228–47.
  8. Ellis LM, Bernstein DS, Voest EE, Berlin JD, Sargent D, Cortazar P et al. American Society of Clinical Oncology perspective: raising the bar for clinical trials by defining clinically meaningful outcomes. J Clin Oncol 2014;32(12):1277–80.
  9. Jaeschke R, Singer J, Guyatt GH. Measurement of health status: ascertaining the minimal clinically important difference. Control Clin Trials 1989;10(4):407–15.
  10. Juniper EF, Guyatt GH, Willan A, Griffith LE. Determining a minimal important change in a disease-specific quality of life questionnaire. J Clin Epidemiol 1994;47(1):81–7.
  11. United States Food and Drug Administration. Guidance for industry: patient-reported outcome measures – use in medical product development to support labeling claims. Rockville, MD: US Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, 2009, www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/UCM193282.pdf.
  12. Wyrwich KW, Norquist JM, Lenderking WR, Acaster S, Industry Advisory Committee of International Society for Quality of Life Research. Methods for interpreting change over time in patient-reported outcome measures. Qual Life Res 2013;22(3):475–83.
  13. Wells G, Beaton D, Shea B, Boers M, Simon L, Strand V et al. Minimal clinically important differences: review of methods. J Rheumatol 2001;28(2):406–12.
  14. Beaton DE, Boers M, Wells GA. Many faces of the minimal clinically important difference (MCID): a literature review and directions for future research. Curr Opin Rheumatol 2002;14(2):109–14.
  15. Copay AG, Subach BR, Glassman SD, Polly DW, Jr., Schuler TC. Understanding the minimum clinically important difference: a review of concepts and methods. Spine J 2007;7(5):541–6.
  16. European Medicines Agency Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP). Guideline on the choice of the non-inferiority margin. London, 2005.
  17. European Medicines Agency Committee for Proprietary Medicinal Products (CPMP). Points to consider on switching between superiority and non-inferiority. London, 2000.
  18. International Council for Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use (ICH) Steering Committee. ICH harmonised tripartite guideline. Clinical safety data management: definitions and standards for expedited reporting E2A. Step 4 version. International Conference on Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Registration of Pharmaceuticals for Human Use, 1994, www.ich.org/fileadmin/Public_Web_Site/ICH_Products/Guidelines/Efficacy/E2A/Step4/E2A_Guideline.pdf.
  19. Cochrane Collaboration. Review manager (RevMan)[computer program]: Version, 2011.
  20. Sterne JA, Bradburn MJ, Egger M. Meta?analysis in Stata™. In: Egger M, Smith G, Altman D, eds. Systematic reviews in health care: meta-analysis in context. 2nd edn. London: BMJ Publishing Group, 2008;347–69.
  21. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Montori V, Vist G, Kunz R, Brozek J et al. GRADE guidelines: 5. Rating the quality of evidence--publication bias. J Clin Epidemiol 2011;64(12):1277–82.
  22. Begg CB, Mazumdar M. Operating characteristics of a rank correlation test for publication bias. Biometrics 1994;50(4):1088–101.
  23. Egger M, Davey Smith G, Schneider M, Minder C. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ 1997;315(7109):629–34.
  24. Bucher HC, Guyatt GH, Griffith LE, Walter SD. The results of direct and indirect treatment comparisons in meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Clin Epidemiol 1997;50(6):683–91.
  25. Signorovitch JE, Wu EQ, Andrew PY, Gerrits CM, Kantor E, Bao Y et al. Comparative effectiveness without head-to-head trials. PharmacoEconomics 2010;28(10):935–45.
  26. Caro JJ, Ishak KJ. No head-to-head trial? Simulate the missing arms. PharmacoEconomics 2010;28(10):957–67.
  27. Wells GA, Sultan Sa, Chen L, Khan M, Coyle D. Indirect evidence: indirect comparisons in meta-analysis, 2009, viewed July 2015, www.cadth.ca/indirect-evidence-indirect-treatment-comparisons-meta-analysis.
  28. Borenstein MH, Higgins L, Rothstein J. Meta-regression (Chapter 20). In: Introduction to meta-analysis. Chichester, England: John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 2009.
  29. Eckermann S, Coory M, Willan AR. Consistently estimating absolute risk difference when translating evidence to jurisdictions of interest. PharmacoEconomics 2011;29(2):87–96.
  30. Latimer NR, Abrams KR, Lambert PC, Crowther MJ, Wailoo AJ, Morden JP et al. Adjusting survival time estimates to account for treatment switching in randomized controlled trials –an economic evaluation context: methods, limitations, and recommendations. Med Decis Making 2014;34(3):387–402.
  31. Robins JM, Finkelstein DM. Correcting for noncompliance and dependent censoring in an AIDS Clinical Trial with inverse probability of censoring weighted (IPCW) log-rank tests. Biometrics 2000;56(3):779–88.
  32. Barton P, Bryan S, Robinson S. Modelling in the economic evaluation of health care: selecting the appropriate approach. J Health Serv Res Policy 2004;9(2):110–8.
  33. Detsky AS, Naglie G, Krahn MD, Redelmeier DA, Naimark D. Primer on medical decision analysis: Part 2 – Building a tree. Med Decis Making 1997;17(2):126–35.
  34. Siebert U, Alagoz O, Bayoumi AM, Jahn B, Owens DK, Cohen DJ et al. State-transition modeling: a report of the ISPOR-SMDM Modeling Good Research Practices Task Force-3. Med Decis Making 2012;32(5):690–700.
  35. Karnon J, Haji Ali Afzali H. When to use discrete event simulation (DES) for the economic evaluation of health technologies? A review and critique of the costs and benefits of DES. PharmacoEconomics 2014;32(6):547–58.
  36. Karnon J, Stahl J, Brennan A, Caro JJ, Mar J, Moller J. Modeling using discrete event simulation: a report of the ISPOR-SMDM Modeling Good Research Practices Task Force-4. Med Decis Making 2012;32(5):701–11.
  37. Tsoi B, O'Reilly D, Jegathisawaran J, Tarride JE, Blackhouse G, Goeree R. Systematic narrative review of decision frameworks to select the appropriate modelling approaches for health economic evaluations. BMC Res Notes 2015;8:244.
  38. Briggs AH, Weinstein MC, Fenwick EA, Karnon J, Sculpher MJ, Paltiel AD et al. Model parameter estimation and uncertainty analysis: a report of the ISPOR-SMDM Modeling Good Research Practices Task Force Working Group-6. Med Decis Making 2012;32(5):722–32.
  39. Fleurence RL, Hollenbeak CS. Rates and probabilities in economic modelling: transformation, translation and appropriate application. PharmacoEconomics 2007;25(1):3–6.
  40. Royston P, Lambert PC. Flexible parametric survival analysis using Stata: beyond the Cox model. College Station, TX: Stata Press, 2011.
  41. Bagust A, Beale S. Survival analysis and extrapolation modeling of time-to-event clinical trial data for economic evaluation: an alternative approach. Med Decis Making 2014;34(3):343–51.
  42. Grieve R, Hawkins N, Pennington M. Extrapolation of survival data in cost-effectiveness analyses: improving the current state of play. Med Decis Making 2013;33(6):740–2.
  43. Karnon J, Vanni T. Calibrating models in economic evaluation. PharmacoEconomics 2011;29(1):51–62.
  44. Latimer NR. Survival analysis for economic evaluations alongside clinical trials--extrapolation with patient-level data: inconsistencies, limitations, and a practical guide. Med Decis Making 2013;33(6):743–54.
  45. Royston P. Flexible parametric alternatives to the Cox model, and more. Stata J 2001;1(1):1–28.
  46. Whyte S, Walsh C, Chilcott J. Bayesian calibration of a natural history model with application to a population model for colorectal cancer. Med Decis Making 2011;31(4):625–41.
  47. Barnett AG, van der Pols JC, Dobson AJ. Regression to the mean: what it is and how to deal with it. Int J Epidemiol 2005;34(1):215–20.
  48. Vemer P, Corro Ramos I, van Voorn GA, Al MJ, Feenstra TL. AdViSHE: A validation-assessment tool of health-economic models for decision makers and model users. PharmacoEconomics 2016;34(4):349–61.
  49. Garrison LP, Towse A, Briggs A, de Pouvourville G, Grueger J, Mohr PE et al. Performance-based risk-sharing arrangements – good practices for design, implementation, and evaluation: report of the ISPOR good practices for performance-based risk-sharing arrangements task force. Value Health 2013;16(5):703–19.
  50. Joint Expert Advisory Committee on Antibiotic Resistance (JETACAR). The use of antibiotics in food-producing animals: antibiotic-resistant bacteria in animals and humans. Canberra: JETACAR, 1999.
  51. Antibiotic Expert Groups. Therapeutic guidelines: antibiotic, version 15. Melbourne: Therapeutic Guidelines Limited, 2014.
  52. Sabaté E. Adherence to long-term therapies: evidence for action: World Health Organization, 2003.
  53. Cramer JA, Roy A, Burrell A, Fairchild CJ, Fuldeore MJ, Ollendorf DA et al. Medication compliance and persistence: terminology and definitions. Value Health 2008;11(1):44–7.
  54. Medical Services Advisory Committee. Technical guidelines for preparing assessment reports for the Medical Services Advisory Committee – service type: investigative (version 2.0). Canberra: MSAC, March 2016, www.msac.gov.au/internet/msac/publishing.nsf/Content/publications-lp-1.
  55. Merlin T, Farah C, Schubert C, Mitchell A, Hiller J, Ryan P. Assessing personalized medicines in Australia: a national framework for reviewing codependent technologies. Med Decis Making 2013;33(3):333–42.
  56. Reitsma J, Rutjes A, Khan K, Coomarasamy A, Bossuyt P. A review of solutions for diagnostic accuracy studies with an imperfect or missing reference standard. J Clin Epidemiol 2009;62(8):797–806.
  57. United States Food and Drug Administration. Guidance for industry and FDA staff: statistical guidance on reporting results from studies evaluating diagnostic tests. Rockville, MD: Food and Drug Administration, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, US Department of Health and Human Services, 2007.
  58. De Vet H, Eisinga A, Riphagen I, Aertgeerts B, Pewsner D. Chapter 7: searching for studies. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy version 04 [updated September 2008], The Cochrane Collaboration 2008.
  59. Whiting P, Rutjes A, Westwood M, Mallet S, Deeks J, Reitsma J et al. QUADAS-2: a revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies. Ann Intern Med 2011;155(8):529–36.
  60. Takwoingi Y, Guo B, Riley R, Deeks J. Performance of methods for meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy with few studies or sparse data. Stat Methods Med Res 2015;June 26 [online first](doi: 10.1177/0962280215592269).
  61. Tong A, Flemming K, McInnes E, Oliver S, Craig J. Enhancing transparency in reporting the synthesis of qualitative research: ENTREQ. BMC Med Res Methodol 2012;12:181.
  62. Tong A, Sainsbury P, Craig J. Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. Int J Qual Health Care 2007;19(6):349–57.
  63. O'Brien BC, Harris IB, Beckman TJ, Reed DA, Cook DA. Standards for reporting qualitative research: a synthesis of recommendations. Acad Med 2014;89(9):1245–51.
  64. Higgins J, Green S. Highly sensitive search strategies for identifying reports of randomized controlled trials in MEDLINE. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions 4.2. 5 [updated May 2005]; Appendix 5b. The Cochrane Library 2005;(3).
  65. Signorovitch JE, Sikirica V, Erder MH, Xie J, Lu M, Hodgkins PS et al. Matching-adjusted indirect comparisons: a new tool for timely comparative effectiveness research. Value Health 2012;15(6):940–7.
  66. Ishak KJ, Proskorovsky I, Benedict A. Simulation and matching-based approaches for indirect comparison of treatments. PharmacoEconomics 2015;33(6):537–49.