SEARCH

SEARCH BY CITATION

References

  • 1
    Kitchener HC, Dunn G, Lawton V, Reid F, Nelson L, Smith ARB on behalf of the COLPO study group. Laparoscopic versus open colposuspension–results of a prospective randomised controlled trial. BJOG (in press).
  • 2
    Lapitan MC, Cody DJ, Grant AM. Open retropubic colposuspension for urinary incontinence in women. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2003;1:CD002912.
  • 3
    Kung RC, Lie K, Lee P, Drutz HP. The cost-effectiveness of laparoscopic versus abdominal Burch procedures in women with urinary stress incontinence. J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc 1996;3:53744.
  • 4
    Loveridge K, Malouf A, Kennedy C, Edgington A, Lam A. Laparoscopic colposuspension. Is it cost-effective? Surg Endosc 1997;11:7625.
  • 5
    Kohli N, Jacobs PA, Sze EH, Roat TW, Karram MM. Open compared with laparoscopic approach to Burch colposuspension: a cost analysis. Obstet Gynecol 1997;90:41115.
  • 6
    Brown LC, Epstein D, Manca A, Beard JD, Powell JT, Greenhalgh RM. The UK Endovascular Aneurysm Repair (EVAR) trials: design, methodology and progress. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 2004;27:37281.
  • 7
    NICE. Guide to the Methods of Technology Appraisal. London: National Institute for Clinical Excellence, 2004 [www.nice.org.uk]. Accessed 7 July 2006.
  • 8
    The Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy (CIPFA). The Health Service Database 2002–03. Croydon, UK: CIFPA, 2003.
  • 9
    Sculpher M, Manca A, Abbott J, Fountain J, Mason S, Garry R. Cost effectiveness analysis of laparoscopic hysterectomy compared with standard hysterectomy: results from a randomised trial. BMJ 2004;328:134.
  • 10
    Review body for Nursing Staff Midwives, Health Visitors and Professionals Allied to Medicine. Report 2003. London: HMSO, 2003.
  • 11
    Netten A, Dennett J, Knight J. Unit Costs of Health and Social Care. Canterbury, UK: PSSRU, University of Kent at Canterbury, 2003.
  • 12
    Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain. British National Formulary. Number 44 (September). London: British Medical Association and the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain, 2002.
  • 13
    Kind P. The EuroQol instrument: an index of health-related quality of life. In: SpikerB, editor. Quality of Life and Pharmacoeconomics in Clinical Trials. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott-Raven; 1996. p. 191201.
  • 14
    Kind P, Hardman G, Macran S. UK Population Norms for EQ-5D. Centre for Health Economics. Discussion Paper 172. York, UK: Centre for Health Economics, University of York, 1999.
  • 15
    Kind P, Dolan P, Gudex C, Williams A. Variations in population health status: results from a United Kingdom national questionnaire survey. BMJ 1998;317:601.
  • 16
    Manca A, Hawkins N, Sculpher MJ. Estimating mean QALYs in trial-based cost-effectiveness analysis: the importance of controlling for baseline utility. Health Econ 2005;14:48796.
  • 17
    Luce BR, O’Hagan A. A Primer on Bayesian Statistics in Health Economics and Outcomes Research. London: Medtap, 2003.
  • 18
    UK BEAM Trial Team. United Kingdom back pain exercise and manipulation (UK BEAM) randomised trial: cost effectiveness of physical treatments for back pain in primary care. BMJ 2004;329:1381.
  • 19
    Petit C, Maccario J. A Bayesian analysis of pharmacoeconomic data from a clinical trial on schizophrenia. Stat Med 2003;22:102539.
  • 20
    Cooper NJ, Sutton AJ, Abrams KR. Decision analytical economic modelling within a Bayesian framework: application to prophylactic antibiotics use for caesarean section. Stat Methods Med Res 2002;11:491512.
  • 21
    Fryback DG, Chinnis JO Jr, Ulvila JW. Bayesian cost-effectiveness analysis. An example using the GUSTO trial. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2001;17:8397.
  • 22
    Spiegelhalter DJ, Thomas A, Best NG. WinBUGS Version 1.4 User Manual. Cambridge, UK: MRC Biostatistics Unit, 1999.
  • 23
    Van Hout BA, Al MJ, Gordon GS, Rutten FFH. Costs, effects and C/E ratios alongside a clinical trial. Health Econ 1994;3:30919.
  • 24
    Fenwick E, Claxton K, Sculpher M. Representing uncertainty: the role of cost-effectiveness acceptability curves. Health Econ 2001;10:77987.
  • 25
    Fenwick E, O‘Brien BJ, Briggs A. Cost-effectiveness acceptability curves—facts, fallacies and frequently asked questions. Health Econ 2004;13:40515.
  • 26
    Matthew JNS, Altman D, Campbell MJ. Analysis of serial measurements in medical research. BMJ 1990;300:2305.
  • 27
    Fatthy H, El Hao M, Samaha I, Abdallah K. Modified Burch colposuspension: laparoscopy versus laparotomy. J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc 2001;8:99106.
  • 28
    Su TH, Wang KG, Hsu CY, Wei HJ, Hong BK. Prospective comparison of laparoscopic and traditional colposuspensions in the treatment of genuine stress incontinence. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 1997;76:57682.
  • 29
    Ankardal M, Ekerydh A, Crafoord K, Milsom I, Stjerndahl JH, Engh ME. A randomised trial comparing open Burch colposuspension using sutures with laparoscopic colposuspension using mesh and staples in women with stress urinary incontinence. BJOG 2004;111:97481.
  • 30
    Cheon WC, Mak JH, Liu JY. Prospective randomised controlled trial comparing laparoscopic and open colposuspension. Hong Kong Med J 2003;9:1014.
  • 31
    Ustun Y, Engin-Ustun Y, Gungor M, Tezcan S. Randomized comparison of Burch urethropexy procedures concomitant with gynecologic operations. Gynecol Obstet Invest 2005;59:1923.
  • 32
    Raftery J. NICE: faster access to modern treatments? Analysis of guidance on health technologies. BMJ 2001;32:13003.
  • 33
    Manca A, Sculpher MJ, Ward K, Hilton P. A cost-utility analysis of tension-free vaginal tape versus colposuspension for primary urodynamic stress incontinence. BJOG 2003;110:25562.
  • 34
    Burton G. A three year prospective randomised urodynamic study comparing open and laparoscopic colposuspension. Neurourol Urodyn 1997;16:3534.
  • 35
    Neumayer L, Giobbie-Hurder A, Jonasson O, Fitzgibbons R Jr, Dunlop D, Gibbs J, et al. Open mesh versus laparoscopic mesh repair of inguinal hernia. N Engl J Med 2004;350:181927.
  • 36
    Cody J, Wyness L, Wallace S, Glazener C, Kilonzo M, Stearns S, et al. Systematic review of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of tension-free vaginal tape for treatment of urinary stress incontinence. Health Technol Assess 2003;7:iii, 1189.
  • 37
    Kilonzo M, Vale L, Stearns SC, Grant A, Cody J, Glazener CM, et al. Cost effectiveness of tension-free vaginal tape for the surgical management of female stress incontinence. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2004;20:45563.
  • 38
    Valpas A, Kivelä A, Penttinen J, Kujansuu E, Haarala M, Nilsson CG. Tension-free vaginal tape and laparoscopic mesh colposuspension for stress urinary incontinence. Obstet Gynecol 2004;104:429.
  • 39
    Fidela M, Paraiso R, Walters MD, Karram MM, Barber MD. Laparoscopic Burch colposuspension versus tension-free vaginal tape: a randomized trial. Obstet Gynecol 2004;104:124958.