The quality of published health economic analyses in digestive diseases: A systematic review and quantitative appraisal

2004 ◽  
Vol 127 (2) ◽  
pp. 403-411 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brennan M.R. Spiegel ◽  
Laura E. Targownik ◽  
Fasiha Kanwal ◽  
Vincent DeRosa ◽  
Gareth S. Dulai ◽  
...  
Author(s):  
Phuong Hong Le ◽  
Quang Vinh Tran ◽  
Trung Quang Vo

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.


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

2003 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 53-61 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joshua J. Ofman ◽  
Sean D. Sullivan ◽  
Peter J. Neumann ◽  
Chiun-Fang Chiou ◽  
James M. Henning ◽  
...  

2009 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. 193-215 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ilia L Ferrusi ◽  
Deborah A Marshall ◽  
Nathalie A Kulin ◽  
Natasha B Leighl ◽  
Kathryn A Phillips

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Padraig Dixon ◽  
Edna Keeney ◽  
Jenny C Taylor ◽  
Sarah Wordsworth ◽  
Richard Martin

Polygenic risk is known to influence susceptibility to cancer. The use of data on polygenic risk, in conjunction with other predictors of future disease status, may offer significant potential for preventative care through risk-stratified screening programmes. An important element in the evaluation of screening programmes is their cost-effectiveness. We undertook a systematic review of papers evaluating the cost-effectiveness of screening interventions informed by polygenic risk scores compared to more conventional screening modalities. We included papers reporting cost-effectiveness outcomes in the English language published as articles or uploaded onto preprint servers with no restriction on date, type of cancer or form of polygenic risk modelled. We excluded papers evaluating screening interventions that did not report cost-effectiveness outcomes or which had a focus on monogenic risk. We evaluated studies using the Quality of Health Economic Studies checklist. Ten studies were included in the review, which investigated three cancers: prostate (n=5), colorectal (n=3) and breast (n=2). All study designs were cost-utility papers implemented as Markov models (n=6) or microsimulations (n=4). Nine of ten papers scored highly (score >75 on a 0-100) scale) when assessed using the Quality of Health Economic Studies checklist. Eight of ten studies concluded that polygenic risk informed cancer screening was likely to be more cost-effective than alternatives. However, the included studies lacked robust external data on the cost of polygenic risk stratification, did not account for how very large volumes of polygenic risk data on individuals would be collected and used, did not consider ancestry-related differences in polygenic risk, and did not fully account for downstream economic sequalae stemming from the use of polygenic risk data in these ways. These topics merit attention in future research on how polygenic risk data might contribute to cost-effective cancer screening.


Oncotarget ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 10 (36) ◽  
pp. 3408-3423 ◽  
Author(s):  
Raymond Henderson ◽  
Declan French ◽  
Richard Sullivan ◽  
Tim Maughan ◽  
Mike Clarke ◽  
...  

2020 ◽  
Vol 36 (4) ◽  
pp. 380-387
Author(s):  
Sarah Fontenay ◽  
Lionel Catarino ◽  
Soumeya Snoussi ◽  
Hélène van den Brink ◽  
Judith Pineau ◽  
...  

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.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document