Quality Assessment of Systematic Reviews of Health Economic Evaluations: Pitfalls with the Application of the PRISMA Statement. Comment on Quang et al. (Sys Rev Pharm. 2017;8(1):52-61)

2018 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 83-84
Author(s):  
Miriam Luhnen ◽  
Siw Waffenschmidt ◽  
Anja Schwalm ◽  
Andreas Gerber-Grote ◽  
Gloria Hanke
Keyword(s):  
Health Economic ◽  
Quality Assessment ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Economic Evaluations ◽  
Prisma Statement

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/.

Methods for Systematic Reviews of Health Economic Evaluations

2014 ◽  
Vol 34 (7) ◽  
pp. 826-840 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tim Mathes ◽  
Maren Walgenbach ◽  
Sunya-Lee Antoine ◽  
Dawid Pieper ◽  
Michaela Eikermann
Keyword(s):  
Health Economic ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Economic Evaluations

scholarly journals Assessing Transferability in Systematic Reviews of Health Economic Evaluations – A Review of Methodological Guidance

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alina Weise ◽  
Roland Brian Büchter ◽  
Dawid Pieper ◽  
Tim Mathes
Keyword(s):  
Health Economic ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Health Technology Assessment ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Technology Assessment ◽  
Health Technology ◽  
High Variability ◽  
Assessment Criteria ◽  
Economic Evaluations ◽  
Resource Needs

Abstract Objective: For assessing cost-effectiveness, Health Technology Assessment (HTA) organisations may use primary economic evaluations (P-HEs) or Systematic Reviews of Health Economic evaluations (SR-HEs). The latter pose the question whether the results from existing P-HEs are transferable across decision contexts (e.g. jurisdictions). A particularly pertinent issue is the high variability of costs and resource needs across jurisdictions. Our objective was to review the methods documents of HTA organisations and compare their recommendations on considering transferability in SR-HE. Methods: We systematically hand searched the webpages of 158 HTA organisations for relevant methods documents from January to March 2019. Two independent reviewers performed searches and selected documents according to pre-defined criteria. One reviewer extracted data in standardised and piloted tables and a second reviewer checked them for accuracy. We synthesized data using tabulations and in a narrative way. Results: We identified 155 potentially relevant documents from 63 HTA organisations. Of these, 7 were included in the synthesis. The included organisations have different aims when preparing a SR-HE (e.g. to determine the need for conducting their own P-HE). The recommendations vary regarding the underlying terminology (e.g. transferability/generalisability), the assessment approaches (e.g. structure), the assessment criteria and the integration in the review process.Conclusion: Only few HTA organisations address the assessment of transferability in their methodological recommendations for SR-HEs. Transferability considerations are related to different purposes. The assessment concepts and criteria are heterogeneous. Developing standards to consider transferability in SR-HEs is desirable.

Systematic reviews of health economic evaluations: A structured analysis of characteristics and methods applied

2019 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. 195-206 ◽  
Author(s):  
Miriam Luhnen ◽  
Barbara Prediger ◽  
Edmund A.M. Neugebauer ◽  
Tim Mathes
Keyword(s):  
Health Economic ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Economic Evaluations ◽  
Structured Analysis

scholarly journals An overview of the characteristics and quality assessment criteria in systematic review of pharmacoeconomics

PLoS ONE ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (2) ◽  
pp. e0246080
Author(s):  
Chen Min ◽  
Mi Xue ◽  
Fei Haotian ◽  
Li Jialian ◽  
Zhang Lingli
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Health Economic ◽  
Economic Evaluation ◽  
Quality Assessment ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
Biomedical Literature ◽  
Assessment Criteria ◽  
Economic Research

Background The systematic review of economic evaluations plays a critical role in making well-informed decisions about competing healthcare interventions. The quality of these systematic reviews varies due to the lack of internationally recognized methodological evaluation standards. Methods Nine English and Chinese databases including the Cochrane Library, PubMed, EMbase (Ovid), NHS economic evaluation database (NHSEED) (Ovid), Health Technology Assessment (HTA) database, Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), WangFang, VIP Chinese Science & Technology Periodicals (VIP) and Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (CBM) were searched. Two reviewers independently screened studies and extracted data. The methodological quality of the literature was measured with modified AMSTAR. Data were narrative synthesized. Results 165 systematic reviews were included. The overall methodological quality of the literature was moderate according to the AMSTAR scale. In these articles, thirteen quality assessment tools and 32 author self-defined criteria were used. The three most widely used tools were the Drummond checklist (19.4%), the BMJ checklist (15.8%), the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement (12.7%). Others included the Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES), the Consensus on Health Economic Criteria (CHEC), the checklist of Center for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD), the Philips checklist, the World Health Organization (WHO) checklist, the checklist of Critical Appraisal Skills Program (CASP), the Pediatric Quality Appraisal Questionnaire (PQAQ), the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) checklist, Spanish and Chinese guidelines. The quantitative scales used in these literature were the QHES and PQAQ. Conclusions Evidence showed that pharmacoeconomic systematic reviews’ methodology remained to be improved, and the quality assessment criteria were gradually unified. Multiple scales can be used in combination to evaluate the quality of economic research in different settings and types.

scholarly journals Heart rate variability as a strain indicator for psychological stress for emergency physicians during work and alert intervention: a systematic review

2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Beatrice Thielmann ◽  
Robert Pohl ◽  
Irina Böckelmann
Keyword(s):  
Heart Rate ◽  
Heart Rate Variability ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Web Of Science ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Emergency Physicians ◽  
Inclusion Criteria ◽  
Objective Monitoring ◽  
Prisma Statement ◽  
Health Studies

Abstract Background The workloads of emergency physicians are severe. The prevalence of burnout among emergency physicians is higher than with other physicians or compared to the general population. The analysis of heart rate variability (HRV) is a valid method for objective monitoring of workload. The aim of this paper is to systematically evaluate the literature on heart rate variability as an objective indicator for mental stress of emergency physicians. Methods A systematic literature review examining heart rate variability of emergency physicians in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) statement for reporting systematic reviews was performed. PubMed, Ovid, Cochrane Libary, Scopus, and Web of Science electronic databases were used. The methodological quality was evaluated by using a modified STARD for HRV. Results Two studies matched the inclusion criteria by using HRV between alert intervention and two other studies were considered that used HRV in other question areas. It showed an adaptation of HRV under stress. The studies were not comparable. Conclusions There is a need for occupational health studies that examine strains and stress of emergency physicians. The well-established parasympathetic mediated HRV parameters seem to be suitable parameters to objectify the stress.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document