Conducting systematic reviews of economic evaluations

Gomersall, Judith Streak; Jadotte, Yuri T.; Xue, Yifan; Lockwood, S.; Riddle, Dru; Preda, Alin

doi:10.1097/xeb.0000000000000063

Cited by 122 publications

(118 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

104

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…For example, they recommend some key features to be critically appraised (including model type, perspective, costs included and others) and they developed a set of guidelines for improving SREE [32], suggesting that ICERs for each comparison should be reported along with the input parameters to better understand the results. Different methods have been suggested on how to present the result in a simplified manner such as the three-by-three dominance ranking matrix (DRM) tool [14,33], harvest plot [34] and hierarchical method [16,35]. Others have discussed the use of the QA tools.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Challenges of Systematic Reviews of Economic Evaluations: A Review of Recent Reviews and an Obesity Case Study

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Decision makers increasingly require cost-effectiveness evidence to inform resource allocation and the need for systematic reviews of economic evaluations (SREEs) has grown accordingly. The objective of this article is to describe current practice and identify unique challenges in conducting and reporting SREEs. Current guideline documents for SREEs were consulted and summarised. A rapid review of English-language SREEs, using MEDLINE and EMBASE, published in 2017/2018, containing at least 20 studies was undertaken to describe current practice. Information on data extraction methods, quality assessment (QA) tools and reporting methods were narratively summarised. Lessons learned from a recently conducted SREE of weight loss interventions for severely obese adults were discussed. Sixty-three publications were included in the rapid review. Substantial heterogeneity in review methods, reporting standards and QA approaches was evident. Our recently conducted SREE on weight loss interventions identified scope to improve process efficiency, opportunity for more transparent and succinct reporting, and potential to improve consistency of QA. Practical solutions may include (1) using pre-piloted data extraction forms linked explicitly to results tables; (2) consistently reporting on key assumptions and sensitivity analyses that drive results; and (3) using checklists that include topic-specific items where relevant and allow reviewers to distinguish between reporting, justification and QA. The lack of a mutually agreed, standardised set of best practice guidelines has led to substantial heterogeneity in the conduct and reporting of SREEs. Future work is required to standardise the approach to conducting SREEs so that they can generate efficient, timely and relevant evidence to support decision-making. We suggest only data extracting information that will be reported, focusing discussion around the key drivers of cost-effectiveness, and improving consistency in QA by distinguishing between what is reported, justified by authors and deemed appropriate by the reviewer.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Ramos et al [36] highlighted the complexity and impracticality of checklists and suggested a 5-dimension framework on good practice procedure in modelling. Gomersall et al [33] suggested separating multi-component questions into single items to avoid ambiguity.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Challenges of Systematic Reviews of Economic Evaluations: A Review of Recent Reviews and an Obesity Case Study

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A study was considered to have studied safety if any outcome studied satisfied the definition of harms as in PRISMA-Harms guidelines for SRMAs (encompassing various terms such as “adverse drug reaction,” “adverse effect,” “adverse event,” “complication,” “harm,” “safety,” “side effect,” and “toxicity”) [38]. Studies were deemed having other outcomes as per their established definitions in context of SRMAs (eg, diagnostic [39], prognostic [40], epidemiological (etiological/descriptive/association) [41–43], economic analysis [44]). A single SRMA could have multiple types of outcomes.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Inadequate diversity of information resources searched in US-affiliated systematic reviews and meta-analyses: 2005–2016

Pradhan

Garnick

Barkondaj

et al. 2018

Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: Systematic reviews and meta-analyses (SRMAs) rely upon comprehensive searches into diverse resources that catalog primary studies. However, since what constitutes a comprehensive search is unclear, we examined trends in databases searched from 2005–2016, surrounding the publication of search guidelines in 2013, and associations between resources searched and evidence of publication bias in SRMAs involving human subjects. Study Design: To ensure comparability of included SRMAs over the 12 years in the face of a near 100-fold increase of international SRMAs (mainly genetic studies from China) during this period, we focused on USA-affiliated SRMAs, manually reviewing 100 randomly selected SRMAs from those published in each year. After excluding articles (mainly for inadequate detail or out-of-scope methods), we identified factors associated with the databases searched, used network analysis to see which resources were simultaneously searched, and used logistic regression to link information sources searched with a lower chance of finding publication bias. Results: Among 817 SRMA articles studied, the common resources used were Medline (95%), EMBASE (44%), and Cochrane (41%). Methods journal SRMAs were most likely to use registries and grey literature resources. We found substantial co-searching of resources with only published materials, and not complemented by searches of registries and the grey literature. The 2013 guideline did not substantially increase searching of registries and grey literature resources to retrieve primary studies for the SRMAs. When used to augment Med-line, Scopus (in all SRMAs) and ClinicalTrials.gov (in SRMAs with safety outcomes) were negatively associated with publication bias. Conclusions: Even SRMAs that search multiple sources tend to search similar resources. Our study supports searching Scopus and CTG in addition to Medline to reduce the chance of publication bias.

show abstract

“…This review was conducted in accordance with the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) guidance for the systematic review of economic evaluation evidence [30]. A protocol for this systematic review was registered with the PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews on 30 January 2015 (http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO; registration number CRD42015015977).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Where’s the evidence? a systematic review of economic analyses of residential aged care infrastructure

Easton

Milte

Crotty

et al. 2017

BMC Health Serv Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundResidential care infrastructure, in terms of the characteristics of the organisation (such as proprietary status, size, and location) and the physical environment, have been found to directly influence resident outcomes. This review aimed to summarise the existing literature of economic evaluations of residential care infrastructure.MethodsA systematic review of English language articles using AgeLine, CINAHL, Econlit, Informit (databases in Health; Business and Law; Social Sciences), Medline, ProQuest, Scopus, and Web of Science with retrieval up to 14 December 2015. The search strategy combined terms relating to nursing homes, economics, and older people. Full economic evaluations, partial economic evaluations, and randomised trials reporting more limited economic information, such as estimates of resource use or costs of interventions were included. Data was extracted using predefined data fields and synthesized in a narrative summary to address the stated review objective.ResultsFourteen studies containing an economic component were identified. None of the identified studies attempted to systematically link costs and outcomes in the form of a cost-benefit, cost-effectiveness, or cost-utility analysis. There was a wide variation in approaches taken for valuing the outcomes associated with differential residential care infrastructures: 8 studies utilized various clinical outcomes as proxies for the quality of care provided, and 2 focused on resident outcomes including agitation, quality of life, and the quality of care interactions. Only 2 studies included residents living with dementia.ConclusionsRobust economic evidence is needed to inform aged care facility design. Future research should focus on identifying appropriate and meaningful outcome measures that can be used at a service planning level, as well as the broader health benefits and cost-saving potential of different organisational and environmental characteristics in residential care.Trial registrationInternational Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) registration number CRD42015015977.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12913-017-2165-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

show abstract

Conducting systematic reviews of economic evaluations

Cited by 122 publications

References 4 publications

Challenges of Systematic Reviews of Economic Evaluations: A Review of Recent Reviews and an Obesity Case Study

Challenges of Systematic Reviews of Economic Evaluations: A Review of Recent Reviews and an Obesity Case Study

Inadequate diversity of information resources searched in US-affiliated systematic reviews and meta-analyses: 2005–2016

Where’s the evidence? a systematic review of economic analyses of residential aged care infrastructure

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About