Comparaciones indirectas en los informes de evaluación de medicamentos en la web del grupo GENESIS de la SEFH

Comparaciones indirectas en los informes de evaluación de medicamentos en la web del grupo GENESIS de la SEFH

An active comparator was present in 95% of the 337 analysed reports; 50% included a direct comparative study vs comparator. In 114 reports (34%), an IC was used; 69% of the ICs were made by the report author. Most ICs were narrative and none were adjusted. An IC could have been made in an additio...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Ortega-Eslava, A. (Ana), Fraga-Fuentes, M.D. (M.D.), Puigventos, F. (Francesc), Santos-Ramos, B. (B.), Clopes-Estela, A. (A.), Vilanova-Bolto, M. (M.)
Format: info:eu-repo/semantics/article
Language:spa
Published: Elsevier 2012
Subjects:
Indirect comparisons
Decision-making
Drug evaluation
Online Access:https://hdl.handle.net/10171/22957
Description
Summary:An active comparator was present in 95% of the 337 analysed reports; 50% included a direct comparative study vs comparator. In 114 reports (34%), an IC was used; 69% of the ICs were made by the report author. Most ICs were narrative and none were adjusted. An IC could have been made in an additional 16% of the cases and possibly in 24% more. Conclusions: Most evaluated drugs have an active comparator but studies comparing them directly are not as common. ICs could be included in more reports along with quality control criteria. © 2011 SEFH. Published

Similar Items