Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
The review identified several model input data gaps, including utility values in partial responders, efficacy of second-line treatments, and resource utilisation estimates obtained from relevant, high-quality studies. It highlighted the differences in outcome measures among the trials of MDD interventions, which can lead to difficulty in performing indirect comparisons, and the inconsistencies in definitions of health states used in the clinical trials and those used in utility studies. Clinical outcomes contributed to the uncertainty in cost-effectiveness estimates to a greater degree than costs or utility weights.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Zimovetz et al. (2012) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: