Network


Latest external collaboration on country level. Dive into details by clicking on the dots.

Hotspot


Dive into the research topics where Elizabeth Loder is active.

Publication


Featured researches published by Elizabeth Loder.


Value in Health | 2013

Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS)—Explanation and Elaboration: A Report of the ISPOR Health Economic Evaluation Publication Guidelines Good Reporting Practices Task Force

Don Husereau; Michael Drummond; Stavros Petrou; Chris Carswell; David Moher; Dan Greenberg; Federico Augustovski; Andrew Briggs; Josephine Mauskopf; Elizabeth Loder

BACKGROUND Economic evaluations of health interventions pose a particular challenge for reporting because substantial information must be conveyed to allow scrutiny of study findings. Despite a growth in published reports, existing reporting guidelines are not widely adopted. There is also a need to consolidate and update existing guidelines and promote their use in a user-friendly manner. A checklist is one way to help authors, editors, and peer reviewers use guidelines to improve reporting. OBJECTIVE The task forces overall goal was to provide recommendations to optimize the reporting of health economic evaluations. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement is an attempt to consolidate and update previous health economic evaluation guidelines into one current, useful reporting guidance. The CHEERS Elaboration and Explanation Report of the ISPOR Health Economic Evaluation Publication Guidelines Good Reporting Practices Task Force facilitates the use of the CHEERS statement by providing examples and explanations for each recommendation. The primary audiences for the CHEERS statement are researchers reporting economic evaluations and the editors and peer reviewers assessing them for publication. METHODS The need for new reporting guidance was identified by a survey of medical editors. Previously published checklists or guidance documents related to reporting economic evaluations were identified from a systematic review and subsequent survey of task force members. A list of possible items from these efforts was created. A two-round, modified Delphi Panel with representatives from academia, clinical practice, industry, and government, as well as the editorial community, was used to identify a minimum set of items important for reporting from the larger list. RESULTS Out of 44 candidate items, 24 items and accompanying recommendations were developed, with some specific recommendations for single study-based and model-based economic evaluations. The final recommendations are subdivided into six main categories: 1) title and abstract, 2) introduction, 3) methods, 4) results, 5) discussion, and 6) other. The recommendations are contained in the CHEERS statement, a user-friendly 24-item checklist. The task force report provides explanation and elaboration, as well as an example for each recommendation. The ISPOR CHEERS statement is available online via Value in Health or the ISPOR Health Economic Evaluation Publication Guidelines Good Reporting Practices - CHEERS Task Force webpage (http://www.ispor.org/TaskForces/EconomicPubGuidelines.asp). CONCLUSIONS We hope that the ISPOR CHEERS statement and the accompanying task force report guidance will lead to more consistent and transparent reporting, and ultimately, better health decisions. To facilitate wider dissemination and uptake of this guidance, we are copublishing the CHEERS statement across 10 health economics and medical journals. We encourage other journals and groups to consider endorsing the CHEERS statement. The author team plans to review the checklist for an update in 5 years.


Headache | 2006

Patterns of Diagnosis and Acute and Preventive Treatment for Migraine in the United States: Results from the American Migraine Prevalence and Prevention Study

Seymour Diamond; Marcelo E. Bigal; Stephen D. Silberstein; Elizabeth Loder; Michael L. Reed; Richard B. Lipton

Objective.—To describe the patterns of medical treatment for migraineurs in the United States.


Headache | 2013

The Prevalence, Impact, and Treatment of Migraine and Severe Headaches in the United States: A Review of Statistics From National Surveillance Studies

Todd A. Smitherman; Rebecca C. Burch; Huma U. Sheikh; Elizabeth Loder

Four ongoing US public health surveillance studies gather information relevant to the prevalence, impact, and treatment of headache and migraine: the National Health Interview Survey, the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, the National Ambulatory Care Survey, and the National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey. The American Migraine Prevalence and Prevention (AMPP) study is a privately funded study that provides comparative US population‐based estimates of the prevalence and burden of migraine and chronic migraine.


Headache | 2015

The Prevalence and Burden of Migraine and Severe Headache in the United States: Updated Statistics From Government Health Surveillance Studies

Rebecca C. Burch; Stephen Loder; Elizabeth Loder; Todd A. Smitherman

The US National Center for Health Statistics, which is part of the Centers for Disease Control, conducts ongoing public health surveillance activities. The US Armed Forces also maintains a comprehensive database of medical information. We aimed to identify the most current prevalence estimates of migraine and severe headache in the United States adult civilian and active duty service populations from these national government surveys, to assess stability of prevalence estimates over time, and to identify additional information pertinent to the burden and treatment of migraine and other severe headache conditions.


Headache | 2013

Sex Differences in the Prevalence, Symptoms, and Associated Features of Migraine, Probable Migraine and Other Severe Headache: Results of the American Migraine Prevalence and Prevention (AMPP) Study

Dawn C. Buse; Elizabeth Loder; Jennifer A. Gorman; Walter F. Stewart; Michael L. Reed; Kristina M. Fanning; Daniel Serrano; Richard B. Lipton

The strikingly higher prevalence of migraine in females compared with males is one of the hallmarks of migraine. A large global body of evidence exists on the sex differences in the prevalence of migraine with female to male ratios ranging from 2 : 1 to 3 : 1 and peaking in midlife. Some data are available on sex differences in associated symptoms, headache‐related disability and impairment, and healthcare resource utilization in migraine. Few data are available on corresponding sex differences in probable migraine (PM) and other severe headache (ie, nonmigraine‐spectrum severe headache). Gaining a clear understanding of sex differences in a range of severe headache disorders may help differentiate the range of headache types. Herein, we compare sexes on prevalence and a range of clinical variables for migraine, PM, and other severe headache in a large sample from the US population.


The New England Journal of Medicine | 2010

Triptan Therapy in Migraine

Elizabeth Loder

A 23-year-old woman presents with migraine headaches that are unresponsive to analgesics. Triptan therapy is recommended. Triptans are serotonin agonists that were originally thought to provide migraine relief by causing cranial vasoconstriction; other mechanisms are now also proposed. Chest pain is a common side effect, but cardiac ischemia is rare and usually associated with known cardiovascular disease or risk factors.


Cephalalgia | 2007

Probable migraine in the United States : results of the American Migraine Prevalence and Prevention (AMPP) Study

Stephen D. Silberstein; Elizabeth Loder; Seymour Diamond; Michael L. Reed; Marcelo E. Bigal; Richard B. Lipton

Probable migraine (PM) is a prevalent migraine subtype fulfilling all but one criterion for migraine with or without aura. The aims of this study were: (i) to describe the epidemiology, medical recognition and patterns of treatment for PM in the USA; (ii) to compare the patterns of preventive PM treatment in the population with expert panel guidelines for preventive treatment. A validated self-administered headache questionnaire was mailed to a random sample of 120 000 US households. Subjects were classified as PM according to the second edition of the International Classification of Headache Disorders (ICHD-2). The questionnaire also assessed patterns of migraine treatment. Guidelines for preventive medication use were developed by a panel of headache experts, who used headache frequency and impairment to assess the need for preventive therapy and the gap between current and ideal use. Our sample consisted of 162 576 individuals aged ≥12 years. The 1-year period prevalence of PM was 4.5% (3.9% in men and 5.1% in women). In women and men, prevalence was higher in middle life, between the ages of 30 and 59 years. The prevalence of PM was significantly higher in African-Americans than in Whites (female 7.4% vs. 4.8%; male 4.8% vs. 3.7%) and inversely related to household income. During their headaches, most (48.2%) had at least some impairment, while 22.1% were severely disabled. The vast majority (97%) of PM sufferers used acute treatments, although 71% usually treated with over-the-counter medication. Most PM sufferers (52.8%) never used a migraine-preventive treatment and only 7.9% were currently using preventive medication. According to the expert panel guidelines, prevention should be offered (16.9%) or considered (11.5%) for 28.4% of the PM sufferers in the survey. We conclude that PM is a frequent, undertreated, sometimes disabling disorder. It has an epidemiological profile similar to migraine. In contrast to migraine, which is less prevalent in African-Americans than in Whites, PM is more prevalent in African-Americans than in Whites. In the USA, many with PM do not receive adequate treatment.


Value in Health | 2013

Value in Health OnlineConsolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) Statement

Don Husereau; Michael Drummond; Stavros Petrou; Chris Carswell; David Moher; Dan Greenberg; Federico Augustovski; Andrew Briggs; Josephine Mauskopf; Elizabeth Loder

Economic evaluations of health interventions pose a particular challenge for reporting. There is also a need to consolidate and update existing guidelines and promote their use in a user friendly manner. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement is an attempt to consolidate and update previous health economic evaluation guidelines efforts into one current, useful reporting guidance. The primary audiences for the CHEERS statement are researchers reporting economic evaluations and the editors and peer reviewers assessing them for publication. The need for new reporting guidance was identified by a survey of medical editors. A list of possible items based on a systematic review was created. A two round, modified Delphi panel consisting of representatives from academia, clinical practice, industry, government, and the editorial community was conducted. Out of 44 candidate items, 24 items and accompanying recommendations were developed. The recommendations are contained in a user friendly, 24 item checklist. A copy of the statement, accompanying checklist, and this report can be found on the ISPOR Health Economic Evaluations Publication Guidelines Task Force website: (www.ispor.org/TaskForces/EconomicPubGuidelines.asp). We hope CHEERS will lead to better reporting, and ultimately, better health decisions. To facilitate dissemination and uptake, the CHEERS statement is being co-published across 10 health economics and medical journals. We encourage other journals and groups, to endorse CHEERS. The author team plans to review the checklist for an update in five years.


Headache | 2012

The 2012 AHS/AAN Guidelines for Prevention of Episodic Migraine: A Summary and Comparison With Other Recent Clinical Practice Guidelines

Elizabeth Loder; Rebecca C. Burch; Paul Rizzoli

Background.— Updated guidelines for the preventive treatment of episodic migraine have been issued by the American Headache Society (AHS) and the American Academy of Neurology (AAN). We summarize key 2012 guideline recommendations and changes from previous guidelines. We review the characteristics, methods, consistency, and quality of the AHS/AAN guidelines in comparison with recently issued guidelines from other specialty societies.


International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care | 2013

CONSOLIDATED HEALTH ECONOMIC EVALUATION REPORTING STANDARDS (CHEERS) STATEMENT

Don Husereau; Michael Drummond; Stavros Petrou; Chris Carswell; David Moher; Dan Greenberg; Federico Augustovski; Andrew Briggs; Josephine Mauskopf; Elizabeth Loder

Economic evaluations of health interventions pose a particular challenge for reporting. There is also a need to consolidate and update existing guidelines and promote their use in a user friendly manner. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement is an attempt to consolidate and update previous health economic evaluation guidelines efforts into one current, useful reporting guidance. The primary audiences for the CHEERS statement are researchers reporting economic evaluations and the editors and peer reviewers assessing them for publication. The need for new reporting guidance was identified by a survey of medical editors. A list of possible items based on a systematic review was created. A two round, modified Delphi panel consisting of representatives from academia, clinical practice, industry, government, and the editorial community was conducted. Out of 44 candidate items, 24 items and accompanying recommendations were developed. The recommendations are contained in a user friendly, 24 item checklist. A copy of the statement, accompanying checklist, and this report can be found on the ISPOR Health Economic Evaluations Publication Guidelines Task Force website (www.ispor.org/TaskForces/EconomicPubGuidelines.asp). We hope CHEERS will lead to better reporting, and ultimately, better health decisions. To facilitate dissemination and uptake, the CHEERS statement is being co-published across 10 health economics and medical journals. We encourage other journals and groups, to endorse CHEERS. The author team plans to review the checklist for an update in five years.

Collaboration


Dive into the Elizabeth Loder's collaboration.

Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Rebecca C. Burch

Brigham and Women's Hospital

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Dawn C. Buse

Albert Einstein College of Medicine

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Dan Greenberg

Ben-Gurion University of the Negev

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Researchain Logo
Decentralizing Knowledge