Email updates

Keep up to date with the latest news and content from CERA and BioMed Central.

Open Access Highly Accessed Research

Cost-effectiveness of a hypertension management programme in an elderly population: a Markov model

Gastón Perman*, Emiliano Rossi, Gabriel D Waisman, Cristina Agüero, Claudio D González, Carlos L Pallordet, Silvana Figar, Fernán González Bernaldo de Quirós, JoAnn Canning and Enrique R Soriano

Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation 2011, 9:4  doi:10.1186/1478-7547-9-4

PubMed Commons is an experimental system of commenting on PubMed abstracts, introduced in October 2013. Comments are displayed on the abstract page, but during the initial closed pilot, only registered users can read or post comments. Any researcher who is listed as an author of an article indexed by PubMed is entitled to participate in the pilot. If you would like to participate and need an invitation, please email info@biomedcentral.com, giving the PubMed ID of an article on which you are an author. For more information, see the PubMed Commons FAQ.

Reply to David Rein

Gast��n Perman   (2015-01-09 16:14)  Hospital Italiano de Buenos Aires email

<p>Dear David Rein, <br/>We already engaged in a private conversation and found that there was no conflict. Let me just post the first part of my reply to allow other readers of Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation Journal to have the same information. <br/>Kind regards, <br/> <br/>Dr. Gastón Perman <br/>Corresponding author <br/> <br/>"2011/7/13 Gastón Perman gaston.perman@hospitalitaliano.org.ar <br/>Dear David Rein: <br/>First of all, I beg for your forgiveness if you, or anyone in your research team, were offended with our expression. We did not use the term bias to refer to any malice or overt malpractice. Perhaps we oversimplified our comments or misinterpreted the purpose of your scenario analysis. But it seemed to us that you tried to explore a best-case scenario in two different districts. We assumed that this was a basic form of sensitivity analysis. Apart from these subtleties, we used the term bias to refer to the fact that you investigated and reported only on some of the best centers. Need is to say that you explicitly mention that “This analysis represents the upper boundary of the potential effectiveness of the SHAPP program”. But anyone who did not read your paper in detail could get misinformed about the real performance of the program Statewide. <br/>On the other hand, let me tell you that I found your paper and, especially, the SHAPP program, very interesting. I believe that your efforts are extremely important not only to improve the morbidity and mortality of patients, but also to strive to increase equity. In addition, publishing your paper in an open access source allows other researchers and decision makers to realize that a program based on the Chronic Care Model is worthy. (...)".</p>

Competing interests

None.

top

Erratum

David Rein   (2011-11-29 01:56)  RTI International

In their discussion section, the author��s state;

A literature review of four previous studies showed a combination of some methodological limitations in all of them: short-term analyses[21,24]; intermediate outcome measures[21,23]; a model based entirely on secondary sources[22]; or a biased sensitivity analysis[23].

As the author of reference 23, I would like to point out that our paper did not contain a sensitivity analysis. The author��s accusation of bias cannot be true and should be corrected.

Competing interests

I have no commercial interests in this subject.

top

Post a comment