This article is part of the series "How to prepare a systematic review of economic evaluations (EES) for informing evidence-based healthcare decisions", in which a five-step approach is proposed. Areas covered: This paper focuses on the selection of relevant databases and developing a search strategy for detecting EEs, as well as on how to perform the search and how to extract relevant data from retrieved records. Expert commentary: Thus far, little has been published on how to conduct systematic review EEs. Moreover, reliable sources of information, such as the Health Economic Evaluation Database, have ceased to publish updates. Researchers are thus left without authoritative guidance on how to conduct SR-EEs. Together with van Mastrigt et al. we seek to fill this gap.

No abstract

Reports are published in Health Technology Assessment (HTA) if (1) they have resulted from work for the HTA programme, and (2) they are of a sufficiently high scientific quality as assessed by the reviewers and editors.Reviews in Health Technology Assessment are termed 'systematic' when the account of the search appraisal and synthesis methods (to minimise biases and random errors) would, in theory, permit the replication of the review by others. HTA programmeThe HTA programme, part of the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), was set up in 1993. It produces high-quality research information on the effectiveness, costs and broader impact of health technologies for those who use, manage and provide care in the NHS. 'Health technologies' are broadly defined as all interventions used to promote health, prevent and treat disease, and improve rehabilitation and long-term care.The journal is indexed in NHS Evidence via its abstracts included in MEDLINE and its Technology Assessment Reports inform National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) guidance. HTA research is also an important source of evidence for National Screening Committee (NSC) policy decisions.For more information about the HTA programme please visit the website: http://www.hta.ac.uk/ This reportThe research reported in this issue of the journal was commissioned and funded by the HTA programme on behalf of NICE as project number 10/107/01. The protocol was agreed in February 2011. The assessment report began editorial review in June 2011 and was accepted for publication in March 2012. The authors have been wholly responsible for all data collection, analysis and interpretation, and for writing up their work. The HTA editors and publisher have tried to ensure the accuracy of the authors' report and would like to thank the reviewers for their constructive comments on the draft document. However, they do not accept liability for damages or losses arising from material published in this report.This report presents independent research funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR). The views and opinions expressed by authors in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the NHS, the NIHR, NETSCC, the HTA programme or the Department of Health. Published by the NIHR Journals Library, produced by Prepress Projects Ltd, Perth, Scotland (www.prepress-projects.co.uk). Abstract A systematic review and economic evaluation of newgeneration computed tomography scanners for imaging in coronary artery disease and congenital heart disease: Somatom Definition Flash, Aquilion ONE, Brilliance iCT and Discovery CT750 HD NIHR Journals Library

EVAR and OSR can be considered equally effective, while EVAR can be cost saving compared with OSR. EVAR can therefore be considered as a cost-effective solution for patients with AAAs.

This study is the most extensive cost assessment of the treatment costs of AMI in the Netherlands thus far. Our results may be used as input for health-economic models and economic evaluations to support the decision making of registration, reimbursement and pricing of interventions in healthcare.

Overall, published cost-effectiveness analyses of EVAR do not provide a clear answer about whether elective EVAR is a cost-effective solution because the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio varies considerably among the studies. This answer can best be provided through a cost-effectiveness analysis of EVAR that incorporates more recent technologic advances and the improved experience that clinicians have with EVAR.

http://radiology.rsna.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1148/radiol.13121136/-/DC1.

The most comprehensive DMPs for CVR and COPD have the potential to be cost saving, effective, or cost-effective compared with the least comprehensive DMPs. The challenge for Dutch stakeholders is to find the optimal mixture of interventions that is most suited for each target group.