Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Use of Consensus Methods and Expert Panels in Pharmacoeconomic Studies

Practical Applications and Methodological Shortcomings

  • Leading Article
  • Published:
PharmacoEconomics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Summary

The use of expert opinion in pharmacoeconomic studies is widespread. A review of the relevant literature has shown that expert opinion is frequently used in decision analysis, Markov models and disease management, with estimates of potential values derived from Delphi panels, modified Delphi panels and expert round tables. These consensus-gathering methods are often applied as if potential drawbacks to their application were absent.

This article reviews and summarises the use of these techniques in pharmacoeconomic research and evaluates the potential shortcomings of the methodology employed. In particular, several areas of concern are noted: the provision of baseline information or seed algorithms to panellists, the high attrition rate of panels, the criteria for selecting experts and the definition of consensus. This article offers recommendations for the future application of these techniques and concludes that expert opinion can still play a valuable role in pharmacoeconomic research.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Kind P, Sorenson J. Modelling the cost-effectiveness of the prophylactic use of SSRIs in the treatment of depression. Int Clin Psychopharmacol 1995; 10 Suppl. 1: 41–8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Piccoli A, Puggia R, Fusaro M, et al. A decision analysis comparing three dosage regimens of subcutaneous epoetin in continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis. Pharmacoeconomics 1995; 7(5): 444–56

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Stewart A. Antidepressant pharmacotherapy: cost comparison of SSRIs and TCAs. Br J Med Econ 1994; 7: 67–79

    Google Scholar 

  4. Commonwealth Department of Health Housing and Community Services. Guidelines for the pharmaceutical industry on preparation of submissions to the pharmacy benefits advisory committee. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing House, 1992

    Google Scholar 

  5. Torrance G, Blaker D, Detsky A. Canadian guidelines for economic evaluation of pharmaceuticals. Pharmacoeconomics 1996; 9(6): 535–59

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Sackman H. Delphi critique: expert opinion, forecasting and group process; Lexington (MA): Lexington Books, 1975

    Google Scholar 

  7. Le Pen C, Levy E, Ravily V, et al. The cost of treatment dropout in depression: a cost benefit analysis of fluoxetine vs. tricyclics. J Affect Disord 1994; 31: 1–18

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Reves R, Johnson P, Ericsson C, et al. A cost-effectiveness comparison of the use of antimicrobial agents for the treatment or prophylaxis of traveller’s diarrhoea. Arch Intern Med 1988; 148: 2421–7

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Williams S, Eisenberg JM, Pascale L, et al. Physicians’ perceptions about unnecessary diagnostic testing. Inquiry 1982; 19: 363–70

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Wong JB, Kokk R, Tine F, et al. Cost effectiveness of Interferon α2b treatment for hepatitis B e antigen—positive chronic hepatitis B. Ann Intern Med 1995; 122: 664–75

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Revicki D, Brown R, Palmer W, et al. Modelling the cost effectiveness of antidepressant treatment in primary care. Pharmacoeconomics 1995; 8(6): 524–40

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Hatziandreu E, Brown R, Revicki D, et al. Cost utility of maintenance treatment of recurrent depression with sertraline versus episodic treatment with dothiepin. Pharmacoeconomics 1994; 5(3): 249–64

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Simpson K, Hatziandreu E, Andersson F, et al. Cost effectiveness of antiviral treatment with zalcitabine plus zidovudine for AIDS patients with CD4+ counts less than 300/µl in 5 European countries. Pharmacoeconomics 1994; 6(6): 553–62

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. O’Brien B, Goeree R, Mohamed H, et al. Cost effectiveness of Heliobacter pylori eradication in the long-term management of duodenal ulcer in Canada. Arch Intern Med 1995; 155: 1958–64

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Larrat EP. Cost effectiveness study of nitrate therapy using decision analysis methodology. Hosp Formul 1994; 29: 277–87

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Pearson SD, Margolis C, Davis S, et al. Is consensus reproducible? A study of an algorithmic guideline development process. Med Care 1995; 33(6): 643–60

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Naylor DC, Baigrie R, Goldman B, et al. Assigning priority for patients requiring coronary revascularization: consensus principles from a panel of cardiologists and cardiac surgeons. Can J Cardiol 1991; 7(5): 207–13

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. McDonnell J, Meijler A, Kahan J, et al. Panellist consistency in the assessment of medical appropriateness. Health Policy 1996; 139–52

    Google Scholar 

  19. Alexandrov A, Pullicino P, Meslin E, et al. Agreement on disease specific criteria for do-not-resuscitate orders in acute stroke. Stroke 1996; 27: 232–7

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Brook R, Chassin M, Fink A. A method for the detailed assessment of the appropriateness of medical technologies. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 1986; 2: 53–64

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Nuijten M, Hardens M, Souetre E. A Markov process analysis comparing the cost effectiveness of maintenance therapy with citalopram versus standard therapy in major depression. Pharmacoeconomics 1995; 8(2): 159–68

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Bentkover J, Feighner J. Cost analysis of paroxetine versus imipramine in major depression. Pharmacoeconomics 1995; 8(3): 223–32

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Craig AM, Davey P, Malek M, et al. Decision analysis of Helicobacter pylori eradication therapy using omeprazole with either clarithromycin or amoxicillin. Pharmacoeconomics 1996; 10(1): 79–92

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Martens L, Guibert R. Cost effectiveness analysis of lipid modifying therapy in Canada: comparison of HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors in the primary prevention of coronary heart disease. Clin Ther 1994; 16(6): 1052–62

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Einarson T, Arikian S, Sweeney S, et al. A model to evaluate the cost effectiveness of oral therapies in the management of patients with major depressive disorders. Clin Ther 1995; 17(1): 136–53

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Severo C, Fagnani F, Lafuma A. Cost effectiveness of hepatitis A prevention in France. Pharmacoeconomics 1995; 8(1): 46–61

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Shear N, Einarson T, Arikian S, et al. Pharmacoeconomic analysis of topical treatments for tinea infections. Pharmacoeconomics 1995; 7(3): 251–67

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Marchetti A, Piech CT, McGhan W, et al. Pharmacoeconomic analysis of oral therapies for onychomycosis: a US model. Clin Ther 1996; 18(4): 757–77

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Jonsson B, Bebbington P. What price depression? The cost of depression and the cost-effectiveness of pharmacological treatment. Br J Psychiatry 1994; 164: 665–73

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Dittus R, Roberts S, Adolph R. Cost-effectiveness analysis of patient management alternatives after uncomplicated myocardial infarction: a model. J Am Coll Cardiol 1987; 10: 869–78

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Dittus R, Roberts S, Adolph J, et al. Cost-effective management of patients following myocardial infarction: the impact of ischemia on alternative approaches. PACE 1988; 11: 2086–92

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Imperiale T, Speroff T, Cebul R, et al. A cost analysis of alternative treatments for duodenal ulcer. Ann Intern Med 1995; 123: 665–72

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Bloom B, Hillman A, Fendrick M, et al. A reappraisal of hepatitis B virus vaccination strategies using cost-effectiveness analysis. Ann Intern Med 1993; 118: 298–306

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Lurie P, Avins A, Phillips K, et al. The cost-effectiveness of voluntary counseling and testing of hospital inpatients for HIV infection. JAMA 1994: 272(23): 1832–8

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Phillips K, Lowe R, Kahn J. The cost-effectiveness of HIV testing of physicians and dentists in the United States. JAMA 1994; 271(11): 851–8

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Begley C, Annegers J, Lairson D, et al. Cost of epilepsy in the United States: a model based on incidence and prognosis. Epilepsia 1994; 35(6): 1230–43

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Field M, Lohr K. Guidelines for clinical practice: from development to use. Washington (DC): National Academy Press, 1992

    Google Scholar 

  38. Jariath N, Weinstein J. The Delphi methodology: a useful administrative approach. Can J Nurs Adm 1994; 7 (4 Pt 2): 7–20

    Google Scholar 

  39. Jones J, Hunter D. Consensus methods for medical and health services research. BMJ 1995; 311: 376–80

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Jariath N, Weinstein J. The Delphi methodology: a useful administrative approach. Can J Nurs Adm 1994, 7 (3 Pt 1): 29–42

    Google Scholar 

  41. Gruber M. The development of a position statement using the Delphi technique. Gastoenterol Nurs 1993 Oct: 68–71

    Google Scholar 

  42. Barr J, Schumacher G. Using decision analysis to conduct pharmacoeconomic studies. In: Spilker B, editor. Quality of life and pharmacoeconomics in clinical trials. 2nd ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott-Raven, 1996: 1197–214

    Google Scholar 

  43. Williams P, Webb C. The Delphi technique: a methodological discussion. J Adv Nurs 1994; 19: 180–6

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Vermeulen L, Ratko T, Erstad B, et al. A paradigm of consensus: the University Hospital Consortium guidelines for the use of albumin nonprotein colloid and crystalloid solutions. Arch Intern Med 1995; 155: 373–9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. The Lewin Group, 101 Main Street Suite 1701, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 02142, USA

    Christopher Evans

Authors
  1. Christopher Evans
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Christopher Evans.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Evans, C. The Use of Consensus Methods and Expert Panels in Pharmacoeconomic Studies. Pharmacoeconomics 12, 121–129 (1997). https://doi.org/10.2165/00019053-199712020-00003

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.2165/00019053-199712020-00003

Keywords

Search

Navigation