While we found relatively good st and ards of reporting the study ’s question , population , interventions , comparators and conclusions , the overall reporting was poor , and evidence of unfamiliarity with international guidelines was evident ( i.e. absence of incremental analysis , of discounting long-term costs and effects ) .
Analysis or description of place-to-place variability was infrequent .
Use and acceptance of health economic evaluations ( HEEs ) has been much greater in developed than in developing nations .
Nevertheless , while developing countries lag behind in the development of HEE methods , they could benefit from the progress made in other countries and concentrate on ways in which existing methods can be used or would need to be modified to fulfill their specific needs .
HEEs , as context -specific tools , are not easily generalizable from setting to setting .
Existing studies regarding generalizability and transferability of HEEs have primarily been conducted in developed countries .
Therefore , a legitimate question for policy makers in Latin America and the Caribbean region ( LAC ) is to what extent HEEs conducted in industrialized economies and in LAC are generalizable to LAC ( trans-regional ) and to other LAC countries ( intra-regional ) , respectively .
A pharmacoeconomic comparison of UFT and 5-FU chemotherapy for colorectal cancer in South America.
The escalating role played by managed care organizations in the health-care system is reflected in the increased dem and for cost-effectiveness analyses ( CEAs ) to assess the balance between economic impact and clinical efficacy . For example , the high incidence and costs associated with colorectal cancer in Latin America calls for a comprehensive economic evaluation to ensure appropriate allocation of limited health-care funds . In addition , the current call for a " societal " perspective of such analyses indicates the need for increased consideration of the concerns of both patient and health-care provider . The introduction of oral tegafur and uracil ( UFT ) provided the opportunity to evaluate the pharmacoeconomic advantage of the new agent compared with the st and ard fluorouracil ( 5-FU ) . Results of this study indicated an economic advantage for oral UFT vs a 5-FU-based regimen in the treatment of colorectal cancer in Brazil and Argentina . It was further noted that the mild toxicity profile of UFT reduced both the number of clinic visits and the need for venipuncture procedures . Noting that oral UFT may have a positive impact on quality of life in addition to its estimated economic benefit , it was concluded that prospect i ve economic research and quality -of-life evaluations are needed to fully assess the pharmacoeconomic impact of oral UFT
While we found relatively good st and ards of reporting the study ’s question , population , interventions , comparators and conclusions , the overall reporting was poor , and evidence of unfamiliarity with international guidelines was evident ( i.e. absence of incremental analysis , of discounting long-term costs and effects ) .
Analysis or description of place-to-place variability was infrequent .
Use and acceptance of health economic evaluations ( HEEs ) has been much greater in developed than in developing nations .
Nevertheless , while developing countries lag behind in the development of HEE methods , they could benefit from the progress made in other countries and concentrate on ways in which existing methods can be used or would need to be modified to fulfill their specific needs .
HEEs , as context -specific tools , are not easily generalizable from setting to setting .
Existing studies regarding generalizability and transferability of HEEs have primarily been conducted in developed countries .
Therefore , a legitimate question for policy makers in Latin America and the Caribbean region ( LAC ) is to what extent HEEs conducted in industrialized economies and in LAC are generalizable to LAC ( trans-regional ) and to other LAC countries ( intra-regional ) , respectively .