A systematic review of the methodological quality of economic studies evaluating ophthalmic drugs

New hand interventions constantly arise and often have greater reported effectiveness yet higher cost. 1 Economic evaluations can be used by hand surgeons, as they provide a decision-making framework on the effects of alternative interventions on health outcomes and costs. 2 Types of economic evaluations include the following: cost-utility analysis, cost-effectiveness analysis, cost-benefit analysis, and cost analysis 3 (Table 1). For a surgical technique to be deemed "cost-effective," both effectiveness and costs must be integrated into a single measure [e.g., incremental cost-utility ratio (in cost-utility analysis),

show abstract

“…23 See Table 2 for a comparison of methodologic and reporting quality of economic evaluations across various specialties. 1–81…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Methodologic and Reporting Quality of Economic Evaluations in Hand and Wrist Surgery: A Systematic Review

Uhlman

Miroshnychenko

Duku

et al. 2022

Plastic &Amp; Reconstructive Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The BMJ checklist (Drummond & Jefferson 1996) was used to assess the quality of the economic evaluation studies included in the present review. This checklist (Drummond & Jefferson 1996) has been widely used and scrutinized across different therapeutic fields (Azar et al 2017;Carter et al 2017;Dubas-Jak obczyk et al 2017;G erard et al 2017;Elshout et al 2018;Shields et al 2018;Ribeiro et al 2019). Additionally, it can be applied to both trialbased and model-based economic evaluation studies and it is the checklist recommended by the Campbell & Cochrane Economics Methods Group (Wijnen et al 2016;Ribeiro et al 2019).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This checklist (Drummond & Jefferson 1996) has been widely used and scrutinized across different therapeutic fields (Azar et al 2017;Carter et al 2017;Dubas-Jak obczyk et al 2017;G erard et al 2017;Elshout et al 2018;Shields et al 2018;Ribeiro et al 2019). Additionally, it can be applied to both trialbased and model-based economic evaluation studies and it is the checklist recommended by the Campbell & Cochrane Economics Methods Group (Wijnen et al 2016;Ribeiro et al 2019). Nevertheless, the BMJ checklist (Drummond & Jefferson 1996) is not able to capture the impact of relevant characteristics of cost-effectiveness studies as the methodological quality of these studies is not influenced by the design of the clinical data sources, the type of effectiveness measure used, the statistical power of the clinical studies and the method of synthesis of clinical data when the economic study is based on more than one source.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

An analysis of the effectiveness outcomes of economic studies evaluating ophthalmic drugs: a systematic review

Ribeiro

Marques

Alves

et al. 2020

Acta Ophthalmologica

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: To characterize the effectiveness measures of cost-effectiveness studies (CES) of ophthalmic drugs. Methods: A systematic review was conducted in PubMed/Embase until October 2019. Cost-effectiveness studies (CES) evaluating ophthalmic drugs were included. Sources of effectiveness measures were extracted. Data on study design and study outcomes were extracted from sources of effectiveness measures. The adequacy of the sample size of the clinical studies used as sources of effectiveness measures was assessed. If CES have retrieved effectiveness data from multiple sources, the appropriateness of the method to combine the results was analysed. Results: Forty-five CES were included. Thirty-one (68.9%) retrieved their effectiveness measures from experimental studies, five (11.1%) from observational studies and nine (20%) from other type of data sources. Eight (17.8%) CES used data from a primary outcome of a study as an effectiveness measure, eight (17.8%) used data from secondary outcomes, seven (15.6%) used data from the both primary and secondary outcomes and for 22 (48.9%) it was not possible to identify the outcomes used. From the 23 (51.1%) CES based on a single clinical study, three (6.7%) included data from clinical studies which had an adequate sample size to detect significant differences in the clinical outcomes used as effectiveness measures. From the 17 (37.8%) CES based on multiple clinical studies, only one (2.2%) used and/or reported an adequate method of quantitative synthesis (metaanalysis). Conclusion: A considerable number of CES in ophthalmology were not based on clinical studies with adequate sample sizes and report results from effectiveness measures not assessed as primary outcomes.

show abstract

Systematic methodological review of health state values in glaucoma cost-utility analyses

Kennedy,

Sarohia,

Podbielski

et al. 2024

Eur J Health Econ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A systematic review of the methodological quality of economic studies evaluating ophthalmic drugs

Cited by 5 publications

References 61 publications

Methodologic and Reporting Quality of Economic Evaluations in Hand and Wrist Surgery: A Systematic Review

Methodologic and Reporting Quality of Economic Evaluations in Hand and Wrist Surgery: A Systematic Review

An analysis of the effectiveness outcomes of economic studies evaluating ophthalmic drugs: a systematic review

Systematic methodological review of health state values in glaucoma cost-utility analyses

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About