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.
read full comment
Comment on: Perman et al. Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation, 9:4
GIGO (Kathryn Stephens, 29 November 2011)
It's too bad money is wasted on a false foundation: CFS patients severely ill for 15-20-25 years, were not diagnosed using the CDC's flawed Empirical Definition. (See Leonard Jason's studies) that deleted the serious neurological and immune deficits/abnormalities. (See Canadian Consensus Criteria.) Reeves, Emory and Abt at it again!
read full comment
Comment on: Lin et al. Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation, 9:1
EVIDEM: an adaptable pragmatic open-source MCDA-based framework for accountable healthcare decisionmaking and priority setting (Mireille Goetghebeur, 20 October 2011)
We would like to thank Youngkong et al for providing an opportunity to clarify a few important points regarding the EVIDEM framework (1,2). In their commentary on the "usefulness of the EVIDEM framework for priority setting across a broad range of interventions", Youngkong et al report that "the EVIDEM framework ignores the contextual nature of priority setting". The EVIDEM framework is intended to be adapted to local context, and actually includes a Contextual Tool to facilitate this process (www.evidem.org). The Contextual Tool prompts decisionmakers to identify their specific priorities and feasibility issues, and facilitates integration of these specific criteria into the framework. The framework is currently being tested and adapted by decisionmakers in several jurisdictions around the...
read full comment
Comment on: Youngkong et al. Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation, 9:8
Adverse effects of hypnotic treatments (Daniel Kripke, 11 July 2011)
As a humble scientist with only 49 years experience in sleep research, I find myself confused by the sophisticated economic analyses of Scott et al. on the cost-effectiveness of treating insomnia. Could it be that the economic models estimate the cost-benefits of successful insomnia treatment versus non-treatment but do not estimate the costs of adverse effects of treatment? For an old guy, reading gets a little blurry. I simply couldn¿t see in Figure 3 where those clever pathways allowed for the possibility of adverse...
read full comment
Comment on: Scott et al. Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation, 9:10
RSS
Latest comments
Erratum (David Rein, 29 November 2011)
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. read full comment
Comment on: Perman et al. Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation, 9:4
GIGO (Kathryn Stephens, 29 November 2011)
It's too bad money is wasted on a false foundation: CFS patients severely ill for 15-20-25 years, were not diagnosed using the CDC's flawed Empirical Definition. (See Leonard Jason's studies) that deleted the serious neurological and immune deficits/abnormalities. (See Canadian Consensus Criteria.) Reeves, Emory and Abt at it again! read full comment
Comment on: Lin et al. Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation, 9:1
EVIDEM: an adaptable pragmatic open-source MCDA-based framework for accountable healthcare decisionmaking and priority setting (Mireille Goetghebeur, 20 October 2011)
We would like to thank Youngkong et al for providing an opportunity to clarify a few important points regarding the EVIDEM framework (1,2). In their commentary on the "usefulness of the EVIDEM framework for priority setting across a broad range of interventions", Youngkong et al report that "the EVIDEM framework ignores the contextual nature of priority setting". The EVIDEM framework is intended to be adapted to local context, and actually includes a Contextual Tool to facilitate this process (www.evidem.org). The Contextual Tool prompts decisionmakers to identify their specific priorities and feasibility issues, and facilitates integration of these specific criteria into the framework. The framework is currently being tested and adapted by decisionmakers in several jurisdictions around the... read full comment
Comment on: Youngkong et al. Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation, 9:8
Adverse effects of hypnotic treatments (Daniel Kripke, 11 July 2011)
As a humble scientist with only 49 years experience in sleep research, I find myself confused by the sophisticated economic analyses of Scott et al. on the cost-effectiveness of treating insomnia. Could it be that the economic models estimate the cost-benefits of successful insomnia treatment versus non-treatment but do not estimate the costs of adverse effects of treatment? For an old guy, reading gets a little blurry. I simply couldn¿t see in Figure 3 where those clever pathways allowed for the possibility of adverse... read full comment
Comment on: Scott et al. Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation, 9:10