scholarly journals A systematic review of the cost-effectiveness of ultrasound in emergency care settings

2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Brian Lentz ◽  
Tiffany Fong ◽  
Randall Rhyne ◽  
Nicholas Risko
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Abdominal Trauma ◽  
Emergency Care ◽  
Health Economic Evaluation ◽  
The Body ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Economic Evaluations ◽  
Published Evidence ◽  
The Cost

Abstract Background The use of ultrasound (US) in emergency departments (ED) has become widespread. This includes both traditional US scans performed by radiology departments as well as point-of-care US (POCUS) performed by bedside clinicians. There has been significant interest in better understanding the appropriate use of imaging and where opportunities to enhance cost-effectiveness may exist. The purpose of this systematic review is to identify published evidence surrounding the cost-effectiveness of US in the ED and to grade the quality of that evidence. Methods We performed a systematic review of the literature following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Studies were considered for inclusion if they were: (1) economic evaluations, (2) studied the clinical use of ultrasound, and (3) took place in an emergency care setting. Included studies were critically appraised using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards checklist. Results We identified 631 potentially relevant articles. Of these, 35 studies met all inclusion criteria and were eligible for data abstraction. In general, studies were supportive of the use of US. In particular, 11 studies formed a strong consensus that US enhanced cost-effectiveness in the investigation of pediatric appendicitis and 6 studies supported enhancements in the evaluation of abdominal trauma. Across the studies, weaknesses in methodology and reporting were common, such as lack of sensitivity analyses and inconsistent reporting of incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. Conclusions The body of existing evidence, though limited, generally demonstrates that the inclusion of US in emergency care settings allows for more cost-effective care. The most definitive evidence for improvements in cost-effectiveness surround the evaluation of pediatric appendicitis, followed by the evaluation of abdominal trauma. POCUS outside of trauma has had mixed results.

scholarly journals ARE POLICY DECISIONS ON SURGICAL PROCEDURES INFORMED BY ROBUST ECONOMIC EVIDENCE? A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW

2014 ◽  
Vol 30 (4) ◽  
pp. 381-393 ◽  
Author(s):  
Roberta Ara ◽  
Hasan Basarir ◽  
Anju D. Keetharuth ◽  
Marco Barbieri ◽  
Helen L.A. Weatherly ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Clinical Evidence ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Economic Evaluations ◽  
Surgical Interventions ◽  
Related Quality ◽  
Health Related ◽  
Prostate Cancers ◽  
The Cost

Objectives: The aim of this study was to examine the empirical and methodological cost-effectiveness evidence of surgical interventions for breast, colorectal, or prostate cancer.Methods: A systematic search of seven databases including MEDLINE, EMBASE, and NHSEED, research registers, the NICE Web site and conference proceedings was conducted in April 2012. Study quality was assessed in terms of meeting essential, preferred and UK NICE specific requirements for economic evaluations.Results: The seventeen (breast = 3, colorectal = 7, prostate = 7) included studies covered a broad range of settings (nine European; eight non-European) and six were published over 10 years ago. The populations, interventions and comparators were generally well defined. Very few studies were informed by literature reviews and few used synthesized clinical evidence. Although the interventions had potential differential effects on recurrence and mortality rates, some studies used relatively short time horizons. Univariate sensitivity analyses were reported in all studies but less than a third characterized all uncertainty with a probabilistic sensitivity analysis. Although a third of studies incorporated patients’ health-related quality of life data, only four studies used social tariff values.Conclusions: There is a dearth of recent robust evidence describing the cost-effectiveness of surgical interventions in the management of breast, colorectal and prostate cancers. Many of the recent publications did not satisfy essential methodological requirements such as using clinical evidence informed by a systematic review and synthesis. Given the ratio of potential benefit and harms associated with cancer surgery and the volume of resources consumed by these, there is an urgent need to increase economic evaluations of these technologies.

Cost-effectiveness of new drugs: A systematic review of published evidence for new chemical entity drugs introduced on the Swedish market 1987–2000

2005 ◽  
Vol 21 (2) ◽  
pp. 187-193 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jonas Lundkvist ◽  
Bengt Jönsson ◽  
Clas Rehnberg
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Health Economic Evaluation ◽  
Therapeutic Benefit ◽  
New Drugs ◽  
Economic Evaluations ◽  
The Past ◽  
Published Evidence ◽  
New Chemical Entities ◽  
New Chemical Entity

Objectives: The number of published economic evaluations has increased dramatically during the past decades, but the number of studies performed for different drugs varies substantially. The objective of this study was to analyze the amount of cost-effectiveness evidence for new drugs, by systematically reviewing the published evidence of cost-effectiveness.Methods: The study included 442 new chemical entities, approved in Sweden between 1987 and 2000. The amount of cost-effectiveness evidence was rated and analyzed together with information about sales and the therapeutic benefit of the drugs. Information about cost-effectiveness was obtained from the Health Economic Evaluation Database.Results: The results showed that most cost-effectiveness evidence was published approximately 1 to 5 years after the approval year and that very few articles were published before or during the approval year. More than half of the drugs did not have any evidence of their cost-effectiveness. A total of 51 of the evaluated drugs were considered having much evidence of cost-effectiveness, 84 drugs were considered having some evidence, and the remaining 307 drugs had little evidence. The analyses indicated that drugs with improved effectiveness or safety compared with other marked drugs had more evidence of cost-effectiveness and that drugs with low sale were likely to have less evidence of cost-effectiveness than drugs with high sale.Conclusions: The study indicated that the publication of cost-effectiveness information for new drugs introduced between 1987 and 2000 may be considered rather rational, that is, the economic evaluations were performed for drugs for which this information was most important.

scholarly journals Cost-effectiveness of oral anticancer drugs and associated individualised dosing approaches in patients with cancer: protocol for a systematic review

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (8) ◽  
pp. e047173
Author(s):  
Madelé van Dyk ◽  
Norma Bulamu ◽  
Chelsea Boylan ◽  
Anna M Mc Laughlin ◽  
Ganessan Kichenadasse ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Economic Evaluation ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Anticancer Drugs ◽  
Health Economic Evaluation ◽  
Health Benefit ◽  
Bibliographic Databases ◽  
Economic Evaluations ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Individualised Dosing

IntroductionOral anticancer drugs (OADs) have rapidly expanded with more than 70 OADs targeting several molecular targets. Many of the OADs exert an exposure–response relationship but still, a ‘one-size fits-all’ dose is used, ignoring interindividual variability. Several of these OADs share similar mechanisms of actions and thus target the same cancer and has resulted in a substantial research focus on comparing the health benefit of each. However, significantly less is known about the cost–benefit associated with OADs. This paper will provide a protocol to systematically review studies that have evaluated the cost-effectiveness of OADs and their associated individualised dosing interventions.Methods and analysisSystematic review methodology will be applied to identify, select and extract data from published economic evaluation (costs and outcomes/benefits) studies of OADs and their associated individualised dosing interventions. Bibliographic databases (eg, Ovid EMBASE, Ovid MEDLINE) will be used to perform the systematic literature search (between 1 January 2000 and October 2020). Only full economic evaluations will be included, but no restrictions on study outcomes will be applied. The quality of included primary studies will be assessed using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards checklist for reporting economic evaluations. Studies with low-quality evidence will be excluded. A narrative synthesis of the results from the included studies will be undertaken, with a subgroup analysis where appropriate.Ethics and disseminationThis systematic review will not require ethics approval as there will not be any collection of primary data. Findings of this review will be disseminated through publications in peer-reviewed journals, presentations at workshops or conferences and sharing through a media release. Findings from this review will provide evidence to direct and inform policy-makers where cost-neutral strategies may be effective or where dose individualising strategies may be economically beneficial. Additionally, gaps will be identified in the current literature to inform future-related research.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42020218170.Electronic supplemental materialThe online version of this article contains supplemental material, which is available to authorised users.

scholarly journals The role of information provision in economic evaluations of non-invasive prenatal testing: a systematic review

2019 ◽  
Vol 20 (8) ◽  
pp. 1123-1131
Author(s):  
Nikita M. John ◽  
Stuart J. Wright ◽  
Sean P. Gavan ◽  
Caroline M. Vass
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Economic Evaluation ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Health Economic Evaluation ◽  
Prenatal Testing ◽  
Information Provision ◽  
Economic Evaluations ◽  
Non Invasive ◽  
The Cost ◽  
The Impact

Abstract Background Technological progress has led to changes in the antenatal screening programmes, most significantly the introduction of non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT). The availability of a new type of testing changes the type of information that the parent(s) require before, during and after screening to mitigate anxiety about the testing process and results. Objectives To identify the extent to which economic evaluations of NIPT have accounted for the need to provide information alongside testing and the associated costs and health outcomes of information provision. Methods A systematic review of economic evaluations of NIPTs (up to February 2018) was conducted. Medline, Embase, CINAHL and PsychINFO were searched using an electronic search strategy combining a published economic search filter (from NHS economic evaluations database) with terms related to NIPT and screening-related technologies. Data were extracted using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards framework and the results were summarised as part of a narrative synthesis. Results A total of 12 economic evaluations were identified. The majority of evaluations (n = 10; 83.3%) involved cost effectiveness analysis. Only four studies (33.3%) included the cost of providing information about NIPT in their economic evaluation. Two studies considered the impact of test results on parents’ quality of life by allowing utility decrements for different outcomes. Some studies suggested that the challenges of valuing information prohibited their inclusion in an economic evaluation. Conclusion Economic evaluations of NIPTs need to account for the costs and outcomes associated with information provision, otherwise estimates of cost effectiveness may prove inaccurate.

scholarly journals Cost-effectiveness of treatment optimisation with biomarkers for immunotherapy in solid tumours: a systematic review protocol

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (9) ◽  
pp. e048141
Author(s):  
Sara Mucherino ◽  
Valentina Lorenzoni ◽  
Valentina Orlando ◽  
Isotta Triulzi ◽  
Marzia Del Re ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Immune Checkpoint ◽  
Cost Utility ◽  
Solid Tumours ◽  
Economic Evaluations ◽  
Monetary Benefit ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Net Monetary Benefit

IntroductionThe combination of biomarkers and drugs is the subject of growing interest both from regulators, physicians and companies. This study protocol of a systematic review is aimed to describe available literature evidences about the cost-effectiveness, cost-utility or net-monetary benefit of the use of biomarkers in solid tumour as tools for customising immunotherapy to identify what further research needs.Methods and analysisA systematic review of the literature will be carried out according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement guidelines. PubMed and Embase will be queried from June 2010 to June 2021. The PICOS model will be applied: target population (P) will be patients with solid tumours treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs); the interventions (I) will be test of the immune checkpoint predictive biomarkers; the comparator (C) will be any other targeted or non-targeted therapy; outcomes (O) evaluated will be health economic and clinical implications assessed in terms of incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, net health benefit, net monetary benefit, life years gained, quality of life, etc; study (S) considered will be economic evaluations reporting cost-effectiveness analysis, cost-utility analysis, net-monetary benefit. The quality of the evidence will be graded according to Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation.Ethics and disseminationThis systematic review will assess the cost-effectiveness implications of using biomarkers in the immunotherapy with ICIs, which may help to understand whether this approach is widespread in real clinical practice. This research is exempt from ethics approval because the work is carried out on published documents. We will disseminate this protocol in a related peer-reviewed journal.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42020201549.

scholarly journals Economic evaluations of health care interventions in Oropharyngeal Dysphagia after Stroke: Protocol for a Systematic Review.

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sergio Marin ◽  
Mateu Serra-Prat ◽  
Omar Ortega ◽  
Pere Clavé
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Economic Evaluation ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Oropharyngeal Dysphagia ◽  
Cost Savings ◽  
Economic Evaluations ◽  
Stroke Patients ◽  
Post Stroke ◽  
Healthcare Interventions ◽  
The Cost

Abstract Background and purpose: Oropharyngeal Dysphagia (OD) affects 40-81% of patients after stroke. A recent systematic review on the costs of OD and it’s main complications showed higher acute and long-term costs for those patients who developed OD, malnutrition and pneumonia after stroke. These results suggest that appropriate management of post-stroke OD could lead to reduction of clinical complications and significant cost savings. The purpose of this systematic review is to assess the available literature exploring the efficiency or cost-effectiveness of available healthcare interventions on the appropriate management of OD. Methods: A systematic review on economic evaluations of health care interventions on post-stroke patients with OD following PRISMA recommendations will be performed. MEDLINE, Embase, the National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database and the Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry Database will be searched and a subsequent reference check will be done. English and Spanish literature will be included without date restrictions. Studies will be included if they refer to economic evaluations or studies in which cost savings were reported in post-stroke patients suffering OD. Studies will be excluded if they are partial economic evaluation studies, if they refer to esophageal dysphagia, or if OD is caused by causes different from stroke. Evidence will be presented and synthetized with a narrative method and using tables. Quality evaluation will be done using Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) Statement. Discussion: The protocol for this systematic review is the first step to assess the cost-effectiveness of the healthcare interventions that have been described as potential treatments for post-stroke OD. This systematic review will summarize the current evidence on the relation between cost and benefits associated with the appropriate management of OD in post-stroke patients. Systematic review registration: PROSPERO CRD42020136245

scholarly journals The Cost-Effectiveness of Mobile Health (mHealth) Interventions for Older Adults: Systematic Review

2020 ◽  
Vol 17 (15) ◽  
pp. 5290
Author(s):  
Zartashia Ghani ◽  
Johan Jarl ◽  
Johan Sanmartin Berglund ◽  
Martin Andersson ◽  
Peter Anderberg
Keyword(s):  
Older Adults ◽  
Economic Evaluation ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Empirical Evidence ◽  
Mobile Health ◽  
Evaluation Studies ◽  
Health Economic Evaluation ◽  
Reporting Quality ◽  
Economic Evaluations ◽  
The Cost

The objective of this study was to critically assess and review empirical evidence on the cost-effectiveness of Mobile Health (mHealth) interventions for older adults. We systematically searched databases such as Pubmed, Scopus, and Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Literature (CINAHL) for peer-reviewed economic evaluations published in English from 2007 to 2018. We extracted data on methods and empirical evidence (costs, effects, incremental cost-effectiveness ratio) and assessed if this evidence supported the reported findings in terms of cost-effectiveness. The consolidated health economic evaluation reporting standards (CHEERS) checklist was used to assess the reporting quality of the included studies. Eleven studies were identified and categorized into two groups: complex smartphone communication and simple text-based communication. Substantial heterogeneity among the studies in terms of methodological approaches and types of intervention was observed. The cost-effectiveness of complex smartphone communication interventions cannot be judged due to lack of information. Limited evidence of cost-effectiveness was found for interventions related to simple text-based communications. Comprehensive economic evaluation studies are warranted to assess the cost-effectiveness of mHealth interventions designed for older adults.

scholarly journals TECHNIQUES FOR DIAGNOSING OSTEOPOROSIS: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW OF COST-EFFECTIVENESS STUDIES

2014 ◽  
Vol 30 (3) ◽  
pp. 273-281 ◽  
Author(s):  
Davide Minniti ◽  
Ottavio Davini ◽  
Maria Rosaria Gualano ◽  
Maria Michela Gianino
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Postmenopausal Women ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Economic Evaluations ◽  
Clear Cut ◽  
Step Procedure ◽  
Database Research ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Effectiveness Studies

Objectives:The study question was whether dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) alone is more cost-effective for identifying postmenopausal women with osteoporosis than a two-step procedure with quantitative ultrasound sonography (QUS) plus DXA. To answer this question, a systematic review was performed.Methods:Electronic databases (PubMed, INAHTA, Health Evidence Network, NIHR, the Health Technology Assessment program, the NHS Economic Evaluation Database, Research Papers in Economics, Web of Science, Scopus, and EconLit) were searched for cost-effectiveness publications. Two independent reviewers selected eligible publications based on the inclusion/exclusion criteria. Quality assessment of economic evaluations was undertaken using the Drummond checklist.Results:Seven journal articles and four reports were reviewed. The cost per true positive case diagnosed by DXA was found to be higher than that for diagnosis by QUS+DXA in two articles. In one article it was found to be lower. In three studies, the results were not conclusive. These articles were characterized by the differences in the types of devices, parameters and thresholds on the QUS and DXA tests and the unit costs of the DXA and QUS tests as well as by variability in the sensitivity and specificity of the techniques and the prevalence of osteoporosis.Conclusions:The publications reviewed did not provide clear-cut evidence for drawing conclusions about which screening test may be more cost-effective for identifying postmenopausal women with osteoporosis.

COST-EFFECTIVENESS OF ADHERENCE INTERVENTIONS FOR HIGHLY ACTIVE ANTIRETROVIRAL THERAPY: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW

2013 ◽  
Vol 29 (3) ◽  
pp. 227-233 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tim Mathes ◽  
Dawid Pieper ◽  
Sunya-Lee Antoine ◽  
Michaela Eikermann
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Antiretroviral Therapy ◽  
Highly Active Antiretroviral Therapy ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Baseline Scenario ◽  
Highly Active ◽  
Adherence Interventions ◽  
The Cost

Objectives: The objective of this systematic review was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of interventions aiming to increase the adherence to highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) in HIV-infected patients in developed countries (WHO stratum A).Methods: A systematic search for comparative health economic studies was conducted in the following databases: EMBASE, MEDLINE, NHS Economic Evaluation Database, CINAHL, HEED, and EconLit. The identified publications were selected by two reviewers independently according to predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. Furthermore, these were evaluated according to a standardized checklist and finally extracted, analyzed, and summarized.Results: After reviewing the abstracts and full texts four relevant studies were identified. Different educational programs were compared as well as the Directly Observed Therapy (DOT). A critical aspect to be considered in particular was the poor transparency of the cost data. In three cost-utility analyses the costs per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) in the baseline scenario were each under USD 15,000. The sensitivity analyses with a presumed maximum threshold of USD 50,000/QALY showed a predominantly cost-effective result. In one study that examined DOT the costs add up to over USD 150,000/QALY.Conclusions: It seems that adherence interventions for HAART in HIV-infected patients can be cost-effective. Nevertheless, the quality of the included studies is deficient and only a few of the possible adherence interventions are taken into consideration. A final assessment of the cost-effectiveness of adherence interventions in general is, therefore, not possible.

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document