The methodological quality of health economic evaluations for the management of hip fractures: A systematic review of the literature

The Surgeon ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 13 (3) ◽  
pp. 170-176 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sanjeeve Sabharwal ◽  
Alexander Carter ◽  
Lord Ara Darzi ◽  
Peter Reilly ◽  
Chinmay M. Gupte
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Health Economic ◽  
Hip Fractures ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
Economic Evaluations ◽  
Review Of The Literature

scholarly journals How the Pilates Method Can Influence Sports Performance in Different Modalities

2020 ◽  
Vol 25 (264) ◽  
pp. 139-152
Author(s):  
Manoela Abreu ◽  
Franciele Carvalho Santos ◽  
Ana Laura Nogueira ◽  
Matheus Lima Zampieri ◽  
Dernival Bertoncello
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
Web Of Science ◽  
Sports Performance ◽  
Review Of The Literature ◽  
Control Groups ◽  
Future Studies ◽  
Pilates Method

The aim of this study was to perform a systematic review of the literature in order to investigate the effects of the Pilates Method on athletes of different sports. Methods: Researches were carried out in databases (SciELO, LILACS, PubMed, Web of Science and SCOPUS) and to evaluate the methodological quality of the studies, the PEDro scale was used. Results: Of the 87 studies found, only four were included. Meta-analyzes to assess flexibility using the Wells Bank's Sit and Reach test and a fleximeter indicated improvement after Pilates application, although there were no statistically significant differences compared to the control groups (Wells Bank's Sit and Reach test: 2 , 83 95% CI: -0.73 to 6.38, I² = 99%; Fleximeter: -0.78, 95% CI: -1.84 to 0.27, I² = 0%). Conclusion: There is evidence of benefits after Pilates intervention. Future studies with standardized protocols, according to the chosen sport, are necessary to determine how the Pilates Method can improve athletes' performance.

scholarly journals Criteria list for assessment of methodological quality of economic evaluations: Consensus on Health Economic Criteria

2005 ◽  
Vol 21 (2) ◽  
pp. 240-245 ◽  
Author(s):  
Silvia Evers ◽  
Mariëlle Goossens ◽  
Henrica de Vet ◽  
Maurits van Tulder ◽  
André Ament
Keyword(s):  
Health Economic ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
Economic Evaluations ◽  
Delphi Panel ◽  
Policy Makers ◽  
Core Set ◽  
International Experts ◽  
Economic Criteria

Objectives:The aim of the Consensus on Health Economic Criteria (CHEC) project is to develop a criteria list for assessment of the methodological quality of economic evaluations in systematic reviews. The criteria list resulting from this CHEC project should be regarded as a minimum standard.Methods:The criteria list has been developed using a Delphi method. Three Delphi rounds were needed to reach consensus. Twenty-three international experts participated in the Delphi panel.Results:The Delphi panel achieved consensus over a generic core set of items for the quality assessment of economic evaluations. Each item of the CHEC-list was formulated as a question that can be answered by yes or no. To standardize the interpretation of the list and facilitate its use, the project team also provided an operationalization of the criteria list items.Conclusions:There was consensus among a group of international experts regarding a core set of items that can be used to assess the quality of economic evaluations in systematic reviews. Using this checklist will make future systematic reviews of economic evaluations more transparent, informative, and comparable. Consequently, researchers and policy-makers might use these systematic reviews more easily. The CHEC-list can be downloaded freely fromhttp://www.beoz.unimaas.nl/chec/.

The Role of Cervical Dysfunction in Migraine: A Systematic Review

Cephalalgia ◽  
2008 ◽  
Vol 28 (5) ◽  
pp. 474-483 ◽  
Author(s):  
BA Robertson ◽  
ME Morris
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
Convincing Evidence ◽  
Cervical Region ◽  
Electronic Database ◽  
Review Of The Literature ◽  
Diverse Range ◽  
Assessment Procedures

This systematic review evaluates the strength of the evidence for the role of cervical musculoskeletal dysfunction in migraine. In this review, cervical musculoskeletal dysfunction will refer to the abnormal sensory afferentation from cervical region structures contained within the receptive field of the trigeminocervical nucleus. Electronic database searches using MEDLINE, PubMed and CINAHL were performed, and 17 studies investigating cervical musculoskeletal dysfunction in people with migraine were selected for review. The methodological quality of the included studies was assessed by two independent reviewers using a customized checklist. The review found that intersubject differences were inadequately reported and controlled, which resulted in grouping of participants with varying pathologies and symptoms. A diverse range of assessment procedures was used by the reviewed studies, which made comparison of their findings difficult. The assessment procedures were mainly used to quantify the degree of cervical musculoskeletal dysfunction, rather than to identify a cause and effect relationship between cervical structure and migrainous pain. Although animal study evidence proposes a role for cervical musculoskeletal dysfunction in migraine, this systematic review of the literature found that there is currently no convincing evidence to confirm this phenomenon in humans.

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.

scholarly journals Evaluating the Quality of the Iranian Systematic Reviews, Meta-Analyses, and Economic Evaluations in Healthcare from 2005 to 2015

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Morteza Arab-Zozani ◽  
Zahra Heidarifard ◽  
Efat Jabarpour
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
Time Horizon ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Economic Evaluations ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Economic Perspective ◽  
Meta Analyses

Context: The number of studies on health is increasing rapidly worldwide and in Iran. Systematic review studies, meta-analyses, and economic evaluation are of great importance in evidence-based decision making because of their standing in the evidence-based pyramid. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the reporting and methodological quality of Iranian systematic reviews, meta-analysis studies and economic evaluations on healthcare. Evidence Acquisition: PubMed and Scopus databases were searched to find considered studies, including systematic reviews, meta analyses and economic evaluations published from 2005 to 2015. Because of the high volume of review studies, 10% of all systematic reviews and meta-analyses were selected as a random sample. Also, all economic evaluations were included. Articles were evaluated using checklists, including PRISMA, AMSTAR and QHES with a maximum score of 27, 11 and 100, respectively. The quality score for each criterion as well as the epidemiological and descriptive characteristics of all articles was determined. Data were analyzed using SPSS V. 16 software. Results: After searching the databases, 1084 systematic reviews and meta-analyses were obtained, 10% of which were included in the study. A total of 41 economic evaluations were also included. The mean scores of systematic reviews and meta-analyses based on PRISMA and AMSTAR checklists were 17.04 (5.35) and 5.42 (1.97), respectively, and 68.21 (12.44) for economic evaluations based on QHES. Only three systematic reviews and meta-analysis articles had recorded protocols and 85% of the studies included the terms “systematic review” and “meta-analysis” in their titles. Only one study had been updated. In addition, 81% of the systematic reviews and meta-analyses were published in specialized journals and 47% in Iranian journals. Financial resources and conflict of interests had been mentioned in 33% and 66% of the studies, respectively. Of the selected studies, 60% had evaluated the quality of the articles and 35% of the studies had assessed publication bias. In economic evaluations, 56% had used CEA analysis, 22% CUA analysis, 12% CBA analysis, and one study had used CMA analysis. Of these studies, 54% were model-based health economic studies and 12% were trial-based. The economic perspective was the health care system in most studies. Forty-four percent of the studies had a short time horizon of one year or less, whereas 33% had a lifetime horizon. Moreover, 68% of the studies showed sensitivity analysis and only 5 included the magnitude and direction of the bias. Conclusions: Overall, the reporting and methodological quality of the selected studies were estimated at a moderate level. Based on these results, it is recommended to adopt strategies to reduce preventable errors in studies. Having a primary plan and protocol and registering it as a systematic review can be an important factor in improving the quality of studies. Economic evaluations should also focus on issues, such as economic perspective, time horizon, available bias, and sensitivity analysis.

scholarly journals Methodological Quality of Economic Evaluations in Integrated Care: Evidence from a Systematic Review

2019 ◽  
Vol 19 (3) ◽  
pp. 17 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mudathira Kadu ◽  
Nieves Ehrenberg ◽  
Viktoria Stein ◽  
Apostolos Tsiachristas
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Integrated Care ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
Economic Evaluations

METHODOLOGICAL QUALITY OF ECONOMIC EVALUATIONS ALONGSIDE TRIALS OF KNEE PHYSIOTHERAPY

2017 ◽  
Vol 33 (4) ◽  
pp. 454-462 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lidia García-Pérez ◽  
Renata Linertová ◽  
Alejandro Arvelo-Martín ◽  
Carolina Guerra-Marrero ◽  
Carlos Enrique Martínez-Alberto ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Economic Evaluation ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
Evaluation Studies ◽  
Economic Evaluations ◽  
Quality Of Reporting ◽  
Evidence Database

Objectives:The methodological quality of an economic evaluation performed alongside a clinical trial can be underestimated if the paper does not report key methodological features. This study discusses methodological assessment issues on the example of a systematic review on cost-effectiveness of physiotherapy for knee osteoarthritis.Methods:Six economic evaluation studies included in the systematic review and related clinical trials were assessed using the 10-question check-list by Drummond and the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) scale.Results:All economic evaluations were performed alongside a clinical trial but the studied interventions were too heterogeneous to be synthesized. Methodological quality of the economic evaluations reported in the papers was not free of drawbacks, and in some cases, it improved when information from the related clinical trial was taken into account.Conclusions:Economic evaluation papers dedicate little space to methodological features of related clinical trials; therefore, the methodological quality can be underestimated if evaluated separately from the trials. Future economic evaluations should follow more strictly the recommendations about methodology and the authors should pay special attention to the quality of reporting.

scholarly journals Hip Fractures in Elderly People: Surgery or No Surgery? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2017 ◽  
Vol 8 (3) ◽  
pp. 173-180 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cornelis L. P. van de Ree ◽  
Mariska A. C. De Jongh ◽  
Charles M. M. Peeters ◽  
Leonie de Munter ◽  
Jan. A. Roukema ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Hip Fracture ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Functional Outcome ◽  
Hip Fractures ◽  
Frail Elderly ◽  
Observational Studies ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
Meta Analysis

Introduction: Increasing numbers of patients with hip fractures also have advanced comorbidities. A majority are treated surgically. However, a significantly increasing percentage of medically unfit patients with unacceptably high risk of perioperative death are treated nonoperatively. Important questions about patients’ prefracture quality of life (QOL) and future perspectives should be asked before considering different treatment options to assess what kind of treatment is advisable in frail elderly high-risk patients with a hip fracture. Objective: The aim of this review was to provide an overview of differences in mortality, health-related QOL [(HR)QOL], functional outcome, and costs between nonoperative management (NOM) and operative management (OM) of hip fractures in patients above 65 years. Methods: A systematic literature search was performed in EMBASE, OvidSP, PubMed, Cochrane Central, and Web of Science for observational studies and trials. Observational studies and randomized controlled trials comparing NOM with OM in hip fracture patients were selected. The methodological quality of the selected studies was assessed according to the Methodological Index for Nonrandomized Studies (MINORS) or Furlan checklist. Results: Seven observational studies were included with a total of 1189 patients, of whom 242 (20.3%) were treated conservatively. The methodological quality of the studies was moderate (mean: 14.7, standard deviation [SD]: 1.5). The 30-day and 1-year mortalities were higher in the nonoperative group (odds ratio [OR]: 3.95, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.43-10.96; OR: 3.84, 95% CI: 1.57-9.41). None of the included studies compared QOL, functional outcome, or health-care costs between the 2 groups. Conclusion: This systematic review and meta-analysis demonstrated that only a few studies with small number of patients comparing NOM with OM were published. A significantly higher 30-day and 1-year mortality was revealed in nonoperatively treated hip fracture patients. No data were found examining (HR)QOL and costs. Further work is needed to enable shared decision-making and to initiate NOM in frail elderly patients with advanced comorbidity and limited life expectancy.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document