Systematic Review of Reporting Quality of Economic Evaluations in Plastic Surgery Based on the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) Statement

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anna Miroshnychenko ◽  
Kathryn Uhlman ◽  
Janna Malone ◽  
Dan Waltho ◽  
Achilleas Thoma
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Health Economic ◽  
Economic Evaluation ◽  
Plastic Surgery ◽  
Health Economic Evaluation ◽  
Reporting Quality ◽  
Economic Evaluations ◽  
Reporting Standards

Quality of economic evaluations of ventricular assist devices: A systematic review

2020 ◽  
Vol 36 (4) ◽  
pp. 380-387
Author(s):  
Sarah Fontenay ◽  
Lionel Catarino ◽  
Soumeya Snoussi ◽  
Hélène van den Brink ◽  
Judith Pineau ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Health Economic ◽  
Economic Evaluation ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Health Economic Evaluation ◽  
Ventricular Assist Devices ◽  
Economic Evaluations ◽  
Level Of Evidence ◽  
Ventricular Assist

ObjectiveBecause of a lack of suitable heart donors, alternatives to transplantation are required. These alternatives can have high costs. The aim of this study was to perform a systematic review of cost-effectiveness studies of ventricular assist devices (VADs) and to assess the level of evidence of relevant studies. The purpose was not to present economic findings.MethodsA systematic review was performed using four electronic databases to identify health economic evaluation studies dealing with VADs. The methodological quality and reporting quality of the studies was assessed using three different tools, the Drummond, Cooper, and CHEERS (Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards) checklists.ResultsOf the 1,258 publications identified, thirteen articles were included in this review. Twelve studies were cost–utility analyses and one was a cost-effectiveness analysis. According to the Cooper hierarchy scale, the quality of the data used was heterogeneous. The level of evidence used for clinical effect sizes, safety data, and baseline clinical data was of poor quality. In contrast, cost data were of high quality in most studies. Quality of reporting varied between studies, with an average score of 17.4 (range 15–19) according to the CHEERS checklist.ConclusionThe current study shows that the quality of clinical data used in economic evaluations of VADs is rather poor in general. This is a concern that deserves greater attention in the process of health technology assessment of medical devices.

Quality Assessment of Reporting of Economic Evaluation in Cardiac Sugery: Has it Improved?

2019 ◽  
Vol 35 (1) ◽  
pp. 45-49 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pascale Guerre ◽  
Nermine Laaboub ◽  
Cyrille Colin ◽  
Jean-François Obadia ◽  
Christell Julien ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Health Economic ◽  
Cardiac Surgery ◽  
Economic Evaluation ◽  
Health Economic Evaluation ◽  
Scientific Progress ◽  
Reporting Quality ◽  
Economic Evaluations ◽  
Quality Of Reporting ◽  
The Mean

AbstractObjectivesCardiac surgery has seen substantial scientific progress over recent decades. Health economic evaluations have become important tools for decision makers to prioritize scarce health resources. The present study aimed to identify and critically appraise the reporting quality of health economic evaluations conducted in the field of cardiac surgery.MethodsA literature search was performed to identify health economic evaluations in cardiac surgery. The consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement was used to assess the quality of reporting of studies.ResultsA total 4,705 articles published between 1981 and 2016 were identified; sixty-nine studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria. There was a trend toward a greater number of publications and reporting quality over time. Six (8.7 percent) studies were conducted between 1981 and 1990, nine (13 percent) between 1991 and 2000, twenty-four (34.8 percent) between 2001 and 2010, and thirty (43.5 percent) after 2011. The mean CHEERS score of all articles was 16.7/24; for those published between 1980 and 1990 the mean (SD) score was 10.2 (±1.4), for those published between 1991 and 2000 it was 11.2 (±2.4), between 2001 and 2010 it was 15.3 (±4.8), and after 2011 it was 19.9 (±2.9). The quality of reporting was still insufficient for several studies after 2000, especially concerning items “characterizing heterogeneity,” “assumptions,” and “choice of model.”ConclusionsThe present study suggests that, even if the quantity and the quality of health economics evaluation in cardiac surgery has increased, there remains a need for improvement in several reporting criteria to ensure greater transparency.

scholarly journals A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW OF HEPATITIS VIRUS REVIEW STUDIES: A CASE OF HEALTH ECONOMIC EVALUATION ANALYSIS

2017 ◽  
Vol 9 (5) ◽  
pp. 114
Author(s):  
Phuong Hong Le ◽  
Quang Vinh Tran ◽  
Trung Quang Vo
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Health Economic ◽  
Economic Evaluation ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Hepatitis Virus ◽  
Health Economic Evaluation ◽  
Current Evidence ◽  
Inclusion Criteria ◽  
Publication Period

Objective: Systematic reviews of economic analysis are necessary for assessing reports and making a decision. A systematic review of systematic reviews is mean of summarizing the current evidence across specialties of the same or very similar intervention, to provide a synthesis treatment effect. The aim of this study was to explore and to assess the quality of systematic reviews conducted hepatitis economic evaluation.Methods: This study was designed as a systematic review following the AMSTAR guideline through Medline, Cochrane, and Science Direct databases. It was scoped in publication period of 2001 and 2016 in international journals. The quality assessment of the included studies was based on AMSTAR checklist. Two authors did the appreciation independently and all the different results were solved by discussion to give the conclusion.Results: 851 publications found, only 25 studies of those met the inclusion criteria. These studies consisted of 5 studies for vaccination and 20 for non-vaccination. There were only 16% (n=4) based on PRISMA guideline; and twenty-one studies (64%) were not showing about the method of the systematic review or not based on any guideline. Only three articles has published in 2016 with a high standard.Conclusion: According to the results of the appraisal AMSTAR checklist, this review shows clearly the current situation and an urgent need for an increase of quality of hepatitis virus review studies based on health economic evaluation.

scholarly journals A Systematic Review of Scope and Quality of Health Economic Evaluation Studies in Vietnam

PLoS ONE ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 9 (8) ◽  
pp. e103825 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bach Xuan Tran ◽  
Vuong Minh Nong ◽  
Rachel Marie Maher ◽  
Phuong Khanh Nguyen ◽  
Hoat Ngoc Luu
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Health Economic ◽  
Economic Evaluation ◽  
Evaluation Studies ◽  
Health Economic Evaluation

Quality of economic evaluations of drug-coated balloons and drug-eluting stents in peripheral artery disease: a systematic review

2021 ◽  
Vol 37 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Aurélie Etangsale ◽  
Leonarda Nunno ◽  
Judith Pineau ◽  
Patrice Prognon ◽  
Nicolas Martelli
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Health Economic Evaluation ◽  
Reporting Quality ◽  
Economic Evaluations ◽  
Peripheral Artery ◽  
High Quality ◽  
Level Of Evidence ◽  
Drug Eluting ◽  
Artery Disease

Abstract Objective We aimed to perform a systematic review of economic evaluations of drug-coated balloons (DCBs) and drug-eluting stents (DESs) in peripheral artery disease (PAD) and to assess the level of evidence of relevant studies. The purpose was not to present economic findings. Methods A systematic review was performed using four electronic databases to identify health economic evaluation studies reporting on the use of DCBs and DESs in PAD. The methodological and reporting quality of the studies was assessed using three different tools, the Drummond, Cooper, and CHEERS (Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards) checklists. Results Six articles were included in this review of the 1,728 publications identified. Four studies were cost-effectiveness analyses and two cost–utility analyses. According to the Cooper hierarchy scale, the studies used good-quality data sources. The level of evidence used for clinical effect sizes, safety data, baseline clinical data, and costs was of high quality in general. In contrast, an evaluation of the reporting quality suggested that essential information was lacking. Conclusion The present study demonstrates that clinical data used in economic evaluations of DCBs and DESs in PAD are from clinical studies of high quality in general. However, the quality of reporting represents a concern when interpreting the results provided by these economic studies.

A systematic review of health economic evaluations in orthotics and prosthetics: Part 1 – prosthetics

2020 ◽  
pp. 030936462093531
Author(s):  
Leigh Clarke ◽  
Michael P Dillon ◽  
Alan Shiell
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Health Economic ◽  
Economic Evaluation ◽  
Current Literature ◽  
Health Economic Evaluation ◽  
Investment Decisions ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Economic Evaluations ◽  
Policy Makers ◽  
Wide Range

Background: The extent to which current prosthetic health economic evaluations inform healthcare policy and investment decisions is unclear. To further the knowledge in this area, existing evidence gaps and method design issues must be identified, thereby informing the design of future research. Objectives: The aim of this systematic review was to identify evidence gaps, critical method design and reporting issues and determine the extent to which the literature informs a wide range of policy and investment decisions. Study Design: Systematic review. Methods: A range of databases were searched using intervention- and health economic evaluation-related terms. Issues with methodological design and reporting were evaluated using the Consolidated Health Economic Checklist – Extended and the Checklist for Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards. Results: The existing health economic evaluation literature was narrowly focused on informing within-participant component decisions. There were common method design (e.g. time horizon too short) and reporting issues (e.g. competing intervention descriptions) that limit the extent to which this literature can inform policy and investment decisions. Conclusion: There are opportunities to conduct a wider variety of health economic evaluations to support within- and across-sector policy and investment decisions. Changes to aspects of the method design and reporting are encouraged for future research in order to improve the rigour of the health economic evaluation evidence. Clinical relevance This systematic review will inform the clinical focus and method design of future prosthetic health economic evaluations. It will also guide readers and policy-makers in their interpretation of the current literature and their understanding of the extent to which the current literature can be used to inform policy and investment decisions.

scholarly journals Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards 2022 (CHEERS 2022) Statement: Updated Reporting Guidance for Health Economic Evaluations

2022 ◽  
Vol 25 (1) ◽  
pp. 3-9
Author(s):  
Don Husereau ◽  
Michael Drummond ◽  
Federico Augustovski ◽  
Esther de Bekker-Grob ◽  
Andrew H. Briggs ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Health Economic ◽  
Economic Evaluation ◽  
Health Economic Evaluation ◽  
Economic Evaluations ◽  
Reporting Standards

scholarly journals Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards 2022 (CHEERS 2022) statement: updated reporting guidance for health economic evaluations

2022 ◽  
pp. 100063
Author(s):  
Don Husereau ◽  
Michael Drummond ◽  
Federico Augustovski ◽  
Esther de Bekker-Grob ◽  
Andrew H Briggs ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Health Economic ◽  
Economic Evaluation ◽  
Health Economic Evaluation ◽  
Economic Evaluations ◽  
Reporting Standards

CONSOLIDATED HEALTH ECONOMIC EVALUATION REPORTING STANDARDS (CHEERS) STATEMENT

2013 ◽  
Vol 29 (2) ◽  
pp. 117-122 ◽  
Author(s):  
Don Husereau ◽  
Michael Drummond ◽  
Stavros Petrou ◽  
Chris Carswell ◽  
David Moher ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Health Economic ◽  
Economic Evaluation ◽  
Task Force ◽  
Health Economic Evaluation ◽  
Economic Evaluations ◽  
Delphi Panel ◽  
Reporting Standards ◽  
Modified Delphi ◽  
Publication Guidelines ◽  
User Friendly

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document