期刊文献+

卫生技术评估中的不确定性评估方法 被引量:2

下载PDF
导出
摘要 1引言 在医疗卫生领域中进行决策分析时,由于研究条件限制或获得信息不全面所导致的不确定性问题不容忽视。近些年来,卫生技术评估中有关不确定性的处理方法一直是学术界关注的焦点。
机构地区 中国药科大学
出处 《中国药物评价》 2012年第2期160-162,共3页 Chinese Journal of Drug Evaluation
  • 相关文献

参考文献13

  • 1吴晶,吴久鸿,刘国恩.2009~2010药物经济学学科发展[J].中国药物经济学,2010,5(6):5-15. 被引量:7
  • 2Van Hout Va,AL MJ,Gordon GS,et al. Effects and C/E ratios a- longside a clinical trim [ J ]. Health Econ, 1994,3 (5) :309-319.
  • 3Elisabeth Fenwick, Karl Claxton, Mark Sculpher. Representing Uncertainty:The Role of Cost-Effectiveness Acceptability Curves [J].Health Economics,2001,10(8) :779-787.
  • 4Garry R. Barton, Andrew H. Briggs, Elisabeth A. 1. Fenwick. Optimal cost-effectiveness decisions:the role of cost-effectiveness acceptability curve, the Cost-effectiveness acceptability frontier, and the expected value of perfection information[J]. Value In Health, 2008 : 11 ( 5 ) : 886-897.
  • 5Ron Goeree,ernie J. O' Brien, ordon Blackhouse, et al. Cost-Ef- fectiveness and Cost-Utility of Long-term Management Strategies for Heartbum[ J ]. Value in Health,2002,5 : 12-328.
  • 6《中国药物经济学评价指南2011版》课题组.中国药物经济学评价指南[R].北京大学中国卫生经济研究中心,2011,(3):51-56.
  • 7Van Hout Va,AL MJ,Gordon GS,et al. Effects and C/E ratios a- longside a clinical trial[ J ]. Health Econ, 1994,3 ( 5 ) : 309-319.
  • 8Brigg AH, Gary AM. Handling uncertainty when performing eco- nomic evaluation of healthcare interventions [ J ]. Health Technol Assess, 1999,3 (5) :319-635.
  • 9Non-parametric methods for cost-effectiveness analysis:the central limit theorem and the bootstrap compared[ J]. Health Economics, 2010,19(3) :316-333.
  • 10吴晶,刘国恩.成本-效果可接受曲线:不确定状态下的医疗决策方法[J].中国药物经济学,2006,0(3):55-59. 被引量:7

二级参考文献36

  • 1吴晶,孙利华,刘国恩.中国药物经济学学科发展现状[J].中国药物经济学,2008,0(6):29-36. 被引量:13
  • 2Grieve R, Cairns J Thompson, S G Thompson. Improving costing methods in multicentre economic evaluation: the use of multiple imputation for unit costs [J].Health Economics, 2010,19(8):939-5.
  • 3Meerding J W, Bonsel J G, Brouwer F B W, Stuifbergen C M, Essink-Bot L M.Social Time Preferences for Health and Money Elicited with a Choice Experiment. Value in Health, 2010, 13(3):368-374.
  • 4Wright D R, Wittenberg E, Swan J S, Miksad RA, Prosser LA. Methods for Measuring Temporary Health States for Cost-Utility Analyses[J]. Pharmacoeconomics, 2009,27(9):713-23.
  • 5Peeters Y, Stlggelbout M A. Health State Valuations of Patients and the General Public. Analytically Compared A Meta-analytical Comparison fo Patient and Population Health State Utilities. Value in Health, 2010,13(2): 306-309.
  • 6Happlch M, Moock J, Lengerke v T. Health State Valuation Methods and Reference Points: The Case of Tinnitus. Value in Health, 2009,12(1): 88-95.
  • 7Seymour J, McNamee P, Scott A, Tinelli M. Shedding new Light onto the ceiling and floor? A quantile regression approach to compare EQ-5D and SF-6D responses. Health Econ, 2010,19: 683-696.
  • 8Ferrelra N L, Ferrelra L P, Perelra N L. A Portuguese Value Set for the SF-6D. Value in Health, 2010,13(5): 624-630.
  • 9Perneger V T, Combescure C, Courvolsler S D. General Population Reference Values for the French Version of the EuroQol EQ-5D Health Utility Instrument. Value in Health, 2010,13(5): 631-635.
  • 10Sharma R, Stano M.Implications of an economic model of health states worse than dead. Journal of Health Economics, 2010, 29(4):536-540.

共引文献12

同被引文献10

引证文献2

二级引证文献35

相关作者

内容加载中请稍等...

相关机构

内容加载中请稍等...

相关主题

内容加载中请稍等...

浏览历史

内容加载中请稍等...
;
使用帮助 返回顶部