Heart 1998;79:10-11 ( January )
Rebuttal
Murmurs from the heart (or why the stethoscope is not an economic tool)
| The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below. |
We thank Drs Sleight and Brophy for their challenging editorial on our ReoPro cost-effectiveness study. The editorial raises several important issues to which we would like to reply. In general, we agree that publication bias can exist with cost-effectiveness studies but remind our critics that this is a potential problem with all scientific research. Further, we accept that the long term outcomes of patients given ReoPro were unclear as we had only six month efficacy data. That was why we performed a two-step analysis with cost-effectiveness data from the pivotal study presented first, followed by an analysis to explore the impact on long term outcomes.
The trial based analysis is not flawed in its scope or because of
selection bias. The EPIC trial was concerned with specific indications
that were not fully examined in the other two studies mentioned
(CAPTURE and EPILOG). Further, no accounting error has been made. The
Register for free content
The full back archive is now available for all BMJ Journals. Institutional subscribers may access the entire archive as part of their subscription. Personal subscribers will also have access to all content when logged in. Non-subscribers who register have free access to all articles published before 2006 right back to volume 1 issue 1. Register here to access the free archive of all BMJ Journals.
Don't forget to sign up for content alerts so you keep up to date with all the articles as they are published.
