Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 176
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once
Benefit assessments according to Sect. 35a of the Social Code Book V are frequently divided into subsets of populations. This division of therapeutic indications is evident in almost every other of the completed appraisals by the Federal Joint Committee (G-BA). The subsets can be deduced from the wording of the approved therapeutic indication (subpopulations) or from potential effect modification (subgroups). Methodological challenges are illustrated on the basis of current scientific knowledge of how to tackle subgroups. Practical assessment examples are used to explain the methods implemented by IQWiG and the G-BA and reveal major problem areas concerning subgroup analyses, subpopulations as well as mismatches between the requirements of early benefit assessment and approval. Overall, it appears there is a need for establishing a more comprehensive discussion regarding the validity of subgroup analyses and their associated limitations.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.zefq.2015.01.001 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!