Hi Jon
Its not much compared to other research. I don't have exact figures at
hand so these are ballpark:
1. MRC is around £700M / year
2. NIHR is around 700M/Year
3. Pharmaceutical companies are more than these combined
4. The Cochrane/DARE spend is around £1M / year and costs about £8,000
per review produced
5. HTA sommissions some reviews at much greater expense - over £100,000
each, but HTA trials are probably closer to £1M each.
(Hopefully someone has more exact figures than these ones from my
inaccurate memory)
So systematic reviews are a small fraction (<1%) of the research spend,
and generally low cost compared to primary research, and may be *much*
more cost-effective, particularly if they lead to new findings[1].
Paul
1. Glasziou P, Djulbegovic B, Burls A. Are systematic reviews more
cost-effective than randomised trials? Lancet. 2006 Jun 24;367(9528):2057-8.
Jon Brassey wrote:
> Hi!
>
> Does anyone know how much money is spent by the NHS and other UK
> government bodies (ie taxpayer funded) on commissioing systematic
> reviews. I'm including UK funding for the likes of Cochrane.
>
> Best wishes
>
> jon
>
> Jon Brassey
> TRIP Database
> www.tripdatabase.com <http://www.tripdatabase.com/>
|