FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2183582392> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2183582392 endingPage "1595" @default.
• W2183582392 startingPage "1591" @default.
• W2183582392 abstract "Our prior study found that pharmaceutical-sponsored and non-profit sponsored analyses differed in their published assessments of the economic value of six new oncology drugs. In this study, we expand on our earlier findings and evaluate the association between funding source and 1) characteristics of the published study report and 2) journal type for dissemination of the previously evaluated economic studies.We reviewed the published cost-effectiveness literature for hematopoietic colony stimulating factors, 5-HT3 antagonist antiemetics. and taxanes. Two blinded investigators rated specific aspects of study reporting based on the US Public Health Service Panel on Cost-effectiveness in Health and Medicine criteria. Dissemination strategies were evaluated using impact factor scores from the Science Citation Index.The operational aspects of pharmaceutical-sponsored study reporting were better overall than those associated with non-profit sponsored studies. Specifically, pharmaceutical-sponsored studies were more likely to be reported based on data obtained from randomized clinical trials or detailed cost-models (90% vs. 70%), to include descriptions of the source of cost differences (90% vs. 79%), to state whether the study was carried out from a societal, governmental, or insurer perspective (70% vs. 42%), and to clearly indicate the time-period over which costs were evaluated (65% vs. 50%). Nonprofit sponsored studies were more likely than pharmaceutical sponsored studies to report the generalizability of the findings, including being more likely to include information about how the data could be extrapolated to other clinical settings (58% vs. 35%), to include statements on the statistical significance of the findings (38% vs. 20%), and to clearly outline the cost per unit and data sources for the cost analyses (67% vs. 45%). A similar percent of pharmaceutical and non-profit sponsored studies reported background and conclusions with about 80% providing literature comparisons of the results (about 80%) and two thirds to three fourths discussing the limitations of the finding (75% for pharmaceutical-sponsored and 67% for non-profit sponsored studies). Most studies were published in low impact factor peer-reviewed journals, and journal impact factor scores were similar between pharmaceutical and nonprofit sponsored studies.Upon reviewing the entire pharmacoeconomic literature for six new oncology drugs, we identified differences in study reporting, but not in types of journals where studies were published, between pharmaceutical-sponsored and non-profit sponsored studies. These results, particularly the observed differences in data generalizability, may account in part for our previous finding of lower likelihood of reporting unfavorable conclusions in pharmaceutical-sponsored studies." @default.
• W2183582392 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2183582392 creator A5021167699 @default.
• W2183582392 creator A5033706484 @default.
• W2183582392 creator A5037456539 @default.
• W2183582392 creator A5065248808 @default.
• W2183582392 creator A5078110696 @default.
• W2183582392 creator A5082191551 @default.
• W2183582392 date "2000-12-01" @default.
• W2183582392 modified "2023-10-18" @default.
• W2183582392 title "Reporting and dissemination of industry versus non-profit sponsored economic analyses of six novel drugs used in oncology" @default.
• W2183582392 cites W1512253910 @default.
• W2183582392 cites W182738154 @default.
• W2183582392 cites W1887056411 @default.
• W2183582392 cites W1970259524 @default.
• W2183582392 cites W1997583013 @default.
• W2183582392 cites W1999842431 @default.
• W2183582392 cites W2023482608 @default.
• W2183582392 cites W2033156884 @default.
• W2183582392 cites W2043951092 @default.
• W2183582392 cites W2048504229 @default.
• W2183582392 cites W2049612542 @default.
• W2183582392 cites W2053664176 @default.
• W2183582392 cites W2063791988 @default.
• W2183582392 cites W2077351095 @default.
• W2183582392 cites W2078946857 @default.
• W2183582392 cites W2085062522 @default.
• W2183582392 cites W2085712408 @default.
• W2183582392 cites W2130443012 @default.
• W2183582392 cites W2141534879 @default.
• W2183582392 cites W2151743950 @default.
• W2183582392 cites W2292479627 @default.
• W2183582392 cites W3203717762 @default.
• W2183582392 cites W4293775847 @default.
• W2183582392 doi "https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1008309817708" @default.
• W2183582392 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11205468" @default.
• W2183582392 hasPublicationYear "2000" @default.
• W2183582392 type Work @default.
• W2183582392 sameAs 2183582392 @default.
• W2183582392 citedByCount "44" @default.
• W2183582392 countsByYear W21835823922012 @default.
• W2183582392 countsByYear W21835823922013 @default.
• W2183582392 countsByYear W21835823922014 @default.
• W2183582392 countsByYear W21835823922015 @default.
• W2183582392 countsByYear W21835823922017 @default.
• W2183582392 countsByYear W21835823922018 @default.
• W2183582392 countsByYear W21835823922021 @default.
• W2183582392 countsByYear W21835823922022 @default.
• W2183582392 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2183582392 hasAuthorship W2183582392A5021167699 @default.
• W2183582392 hasAuthorship W2183582392A5033706484 @default.
• W2183582392 hasAuthorship W2183582392A5037456539 @default.
• W2183582392 hasAuthorship W2183582392A5065248808 @default.
• W2183582392 hasAuthorship W2183582392A5078110696 @default.
• W2183582392 hasAuthorship W2183582392A5082191551 @default.
• W2183582392 hasBestOaLocation W21835823921 @default.
• W2183582392 hasConcept C105795698 @default.
• W2183582392 hasConcept C112930515 @default.
• W2183582392 hasConcept C126322002 @default.
• W2183582392 hasConcept C144133560 @default.
• W2183582392 hasConcept C160735492 @default.
• W2183582392 hasConcept C162118730 @default.
• W2183582392 hasConcept C162324750 @default.
• W2183582392 hasConcept C27158222 @default.
• W2183582392 hasConcept C3019080777 @default.
• W2183582392 hasConcept C33923547 @default.
• W2183582392 hasConcept C50522688 @default.
• W2183582392 hasConcept C512399662 @default.
• W2183582392 hasConcept C535046627 @default.
• W2183582392 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W2183582392 hasConceptScore W2183582392C105795698 @default.
• W2183582392 hasConceptScore W2183582392C112930515 @default.
• W2183582392 hasConceptScore W2183582392C126322002 @default.
• W2183582392 hasConceptScore W2183582392C144133560 @default.
• W2183582392 hasConceptScore W2183582392C160735492 @default.
• W2183582392 hasConceptScore W2183582392C162118730 @default.
• W2183582392 hasConceptScore W2183582392C162324750 @default.
• W2183582392 hasConceptScore W2183582392C27158222 @default.
• W2183582392 hasConceptScore W2183582392C3019080777 @default.
• W2183582392 hasConceptScore W2183582392C33923547 @default.
• W2183582392 hasConceptScore W2183582392C50522688 @default.
• W2183582392 hasConceptScore W2183582392C512399662 @default.
• W2183582392 hasConceptScore W2183582392C535046627 @default.
• W2183582392 hasConceptScore W2183582392C71924100 @default.
• W2183582392 hasIssue "12" @default.
• W2183582392 hasLocation W21835823921 @default.
• W2183582392 hasLocation W21835823922 @default.
• W2183582392 hasOpenAccess W2183582392 @default.
• W2183582392 hasPrimaryLocation W21835823921 @default.
• W2183582392 hasRelatedWork W1561459040 @default.
• W2183582392 hasRelatedWork W2407151074 @default.
• W2183582392 hasRelatedWork W2766154692 @default.
• W2183582392 hasRelatedWork W2786100060 @default.
• W2183582392 hasRelatedWork W2883785577 @default.
• W2183582392 hasRelatedWork W2955570986 @default.
• W2183582392 hasRelatedWork W3016544133 @default.
• W2183582392 hasRelatedWork W3048267076 @default.
• W2183582392 hasRelatedWork W3135503692 @default.

• next