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 Protocol for a systematic review of economic evaluations of preoperative smoking cessation interventions for preventing surgical complications

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (11) ◽  
pp. e057171
Author(s):  
Nikki McCaffrey ◽  
Julie Higgins ◽  
Anita Lal
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Health Economic ◽  
Smoking Cessation ◽  
Economic Evaluation ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Tobacco Control ◽  
Surgical Complications ◽  
Best Practice ◽  
Economic Evaluations

IntroductionThe short-term economic benefit of embedding best practice tobacco dependence treatment (TDT) into healthcare services prior to surgery across different populations and jurisdictions is largely unknown. The aim of this systematic review is to summarise the cost-effectiveness of preoperative smoking cessation interventions for preventing surgical complications compared with usual care. The results will provide hospital managers, clinicians, healthcare professionals and policymakers with a critical summary of the economic evidence on providing TDT routinely before surgery, aiding the development and dissemination of unified, best practice guidelines, that is, implementation of article 14 of the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control.Methods and analysisA comprehensive search of peer-reviewed literature will be conducted from database inception until 23 June 2021 (Cochrane, Econlit, Embase, Health Technology Assessment, Medline Complete, Scopus). Published, English-language articles describing economic evaluations of preoperative smoking cessation interventions for preventing surgical complications will be included. One researcher will complete the searches and two researchers will independently screen results for eligible studies. Any disagreement will be resolved by the third researcher. A narrative summary of included studies will be provided. Study characteristics, economic evaluation methods and cost-effectiveness results will be extracted by one reviewer and descriptive analyses will be undertaken. A second reviewer will review data extracted for accuracy from 10% of the included studies. Reporting and methodological quality of the included studies will be evaluated independently by two reviewers using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards statement and the Quality of Health Economic Studies Instrument checklist, respectively.Ethics and disseminationThis research does not require ethics approval because the study is a planned systematic review of published literature. Findings will be presented at health economic, public health and tobacco control conferences, published in a peer-reviewed journal and disseminated via social media.Trial registration numberCRD42021257740.

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 Health economic evaluation of stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) for hepatocellular carcinoma: a systematic review

2020 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Haiyin Wang ◽  
Chunlin Jin ◽  
Liang Fang ◽  
Hui Sun ◽  
Wendi Cheng ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Hepatocellular Carcinoma ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Economic Evaluation ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy ◽  
Health Economic Evaluation ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Economic Evaluations ◽  
Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma ◽  
Noninvasive Treatment

AbstractStereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) is a novel noninvasive treatment for hepatocellular carcinoma. SBRT can achieve effective local control, but it requires a relatively high input of resources; this systematic review was performed to assess the cost effectiveness of SBRT in the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma to provide a basis for government pricing and medical insurance decision-making. The PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, CNKI, Wanfang and SinoMed databases were searched to collect economic evaluations of SBRT for the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma from the date of database inception through December 31, 2018. Two reviewers independently screened the studies, extracted the data and performed a descriptive analysis of the basic characteristics, methods of economic evaluation and main results, as well as the quality and heterogeneity of the reports. A total of 5 studies were included. Among them, the level of heterogeneity was relatively acceptable, with a median score of 90%. Four studies were cost-utility analyses (CUAs), and 1 was a cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA). The incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER) for sorafenib compared to SBRT was US $114,795 per quality-adjusted life year gained (cost/QALY) in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. The ICER for proton beam therapy compared to SBRT was US $6465 in patients with inoperable advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. The ICER for SBRT compared to RFA was US $164,660 for patients with unresectable colorectal cancer (CRC) with liver metastases and US $56,301 for patients with early-stage hepatocellular carcinoma. For patients with inoperable localized hepatocellular carcinoma, compared with RFA–SBRT therapy, the ICERs for SBRT–SBRT and SBRT–RFA were US $558,679 and US $2197,000, respectively; RFA–RFA was dominated. In conclusion, there is limited evidence suggesting that SBRT could be cost-effective for highly specific subpopulations of HCC patients, and further economic evaluations based on randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or cohort studies are needed.

scholarly journals Economic evaluation of HIV testing options for low-prevalence high-income countries: a systematic review

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Olanrewaju Medu ◽  
Adegboyega Lawal ◽  
Doug Coyle ◽  
Kevin Pottie
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Economic Evaluation ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Hiv Testing ◽  
High Income ◽  
Economic Evaluations ◽  
Rapid Hiv Testing ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Low Prevalence

Abstract Introduction This study reviewed the economic evidence of rapid HIV testing versus conventional HIV testing in low-prevalence high-income countries; evaluated the methodological quality of existing economic evaluations of HIV testing studies; and made recommendations on future economic evaluation directions of HIV testing approaches. Methods A systematic search of selected databases for relevant English language studies published between Jan 1, 2001, and Jan 30, 2019, was conducted. The methodological design quality was assessed using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) and the Drummond tool. We reported the systematic review according to the PRISMA guidelines. Results Five economic evaluations met the eligibility criteria but varied in comparators, evaluation type, perspective, and design. The methodologic quality of the included studies ranged from medium to high. We found evidence to support the cost-effectiveness of rapid HIV testing approaches in low-prevalence high-income countries. Rapid HIV testing was associated with cost per adjusted life year (QALY), ranging from $42,768 to $90,498. Additionally, regardless of HIV prevalence, rapid HIV testing approaches were the most cost-effective option. Conclusions There is evidence for the cost-effectiveness of rapid HIV testing, including the use of saliva-based testing compared to usual care or hospital-based serum testing. Further studies are needed to draw evidence on the relative cost-effectiveness of the distinct options and contexts of rapid HIV testing.

scholarly journals A Systematic Review of Models Used in Cost-Effectiveness of Treatments in Spondyloarthritis

2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (6) ◽  
Author(s):  
Liudan Tu ◽  
Ya Xie ◽  
Jieruo Gu
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Health Economic ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Time Horizon ◽  
Evaluation Studies ◽  
Health Economic Evaluation ◽  
Indirect Costs ◽  
Economic Models ◽  
Economic Evaluations

This review was aimed to evaluate health economic models used in evaluations of different treatment strategies in spondyloarthritis (SpA). Model-based health economic evaluation studies are increasing and complex models with short-term and long-term horizon are applied to investigate the cost-effectiveness of SpA treatments. The objective of this study was to carry out a systematic review of the evolution of health economic models used in the treatment of SpA. Electronic searches within MEDLINE and EMBASE were carried out using a predefined search strategy. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were used to select relevant studies. Data on country, intervention, evaluation perspective, type of model, time horizon, types of costs and effectiveness measurement were extracted. Eighteen models were described in 22 publications, of which 81.8% were European. Study perspectives included the societal (n=6), healthcare system and payer (n=14), or patient and government (n=1). Time horizon ranged from 52 weeks to lifetime. Markov model was the most frequently used model, only one individual patient simulation models accounting for uncertainty in multiple parameters was reported. Most studies compared different biologics (including different TNFi/biosimilar and IL-17A antibody) with conventional care (NSAIDs) because of the high prize. Only half of studies took indirect costs into account. Modeling is of importance in health economic evaluations of SpA treatment. Long-term costs especially indirect costs should be considered when comparing different treatment alternatives in order to provide more information for policy makers and clinicians.

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document