PP51 Updating Canadian Pharmaceutical Budget Impact Analysis Guidelines
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: The Canadian BIA guideline was published by the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board (PMPRB) in 2007. Our initial systematic literature review of national and international BIA guidelines showed that a number of new recommendations relating to BIA model structure, input data and reporting format have been adopted in other jurisdictions such as UK, Australia, Poland, Ireland, Belgium, France and the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR). The main objective of the present study was to conduct a comparative review of national, international and Canadian Federal, provincial and territorial BIA guidelines and provide a list of new recommendations related to the BIA key elements which have not been discussed or included in the Canadian PMPRB BIA guidelines. Methods: BIAs guidelines were searched in databases such as MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane, and the gray literature including regulatory agency websites. An Excel-based data abstraction form was designed in order to highlight differences between recommendations related to the BIA key elements provided by PMPRB, provincial, and other national and international BIA guidelines. Results: Twelve guidelines were reviewed in detail. Sixty percent of the recommendations were new or were different from recommendations in the Canadian PMPRB BIA guidelines. They related to BIA key elements such as perspective, target population, costing, presenting results, data sources and handling the uncertainty. Conclusions: The present literature review is the initial step towards updating the Canadian BIA guidelines. This study presents a comparative review of key elements in BIA among different guidelines and provides a list of relevant practical recommendations for the improvement of the Canadian BIA guidelines. The new methodologic advancements and recommendations that were identified are being presented to Canadian stakeholders for their opinion and feedback prior to the development of a proposed new set of Canadian guidelines.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.073 | 0.297 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.032 | 0.035 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.023 | 0.005 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".