Economics methods in Cochrane systematic reviews of health promotion and public health related interventions

Shemilt, Ian; Mugford, Miranda; Drummond, Michael; Eisenstein, Eric L.; Mallender, Jacqueline; McDaid, David; Vale, Luke; Walker, Damian

doi:10.1186/1471-2288-6-55

Cited by 22 publications

(23 citation statements)

References 43 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Current process guidelines for SREEs may provide some helpful advice, but further detailed consensus based guidance is needed. Shemilt et al [30] argued that the Cochrane SREE methodology varies and has inconsistent reporting of the results. To improve transparency, it is good practice to publish the systematic review protocol [14], as was done with the REBALANCE review [31].…”

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

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%

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

“…Economic outcomes are increasingly evaluated alongside clinical outcomes in health policy research and reviews [9]. Including both types of outcomes may increase policy relevance of the research, as decision makers struggle with questions not only of clinical efficacy, but also real life effectiveness and cost efficiency of interventions [10].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Non-biomedical sources for systematic reviews of pharmaceutical policy

Greyson

2010

J Med Libr Assoc

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…The Drummond 10-item, 13-criteria checklist30 is a simplified version of the more detailed 35-item Drummond version, providing comprehensive guidance on the methodological conduct of an economic evaluation. It is recommended in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions 32. The appraisal will be independently undertaken by OPMS and NB and in case of disputes, VW will arbitrate.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cost and cost-effectiveness of point-of-care testing and treatment for sexually transmitted and genital infections in pregnancy in low-income and middle-income countries: a systematic review protocol

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IntroductionThe economic and health burden of sexually transmitted and genital infections (henceforth, STIs) in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) is substantial. Left untreated, STIs during pregnancy may result in several adverse pregnancy and birth outcomes. Timely diagnosis and treatment at point-of-care (POC) can potentially improve these outcomes. Despite the availability and promotion of POC diagnostics for STIs as a key component of antenatal care in LMICs, their widespread use has been limited, owing to the high economic costs faced by individuals and health systems. To date, there have been no systematic reviews which explore the cost or cost-effectiveness of POC testing and treatment of STIs in pregnancy in LMICs. The objective of this protocol is to outline the methods that will compare, synthesise and appraise the existing literature in this domain.Methods and analysisWe will conduct literature searches in MEDLINE, Embase and Web of Science. To find additional literature, we will search Google Scholar and hand search reference lists of included papers. Two reviewers will independently search databases, screen titles, abstracts and full texts; when necessary a third reviewer will resolve disputes. Only cost and cost-effectiveness studies of POC testing and treatment of STIs, including syphilis, chlamydia, trichomonas, gonorrhoea and bacterial vaginosis, in pregnancy in LMICs will be included. Published checklists will be used to assess quality of reporting practices and methodological approaches. We will also assess risk of publication bias. Interstudy heterogeneity will be assessed and depending on variation between studies, a meta-analysis or narrative synthesis will be conducted.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval is not required as the review will use published literature. The results will be published in a peer-reviewed open source journal and presented at an international conference.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42018109072.

show abstract

Economics methods in Cochrane systematic reviews of health promotion and public health related interventions

Cited by 22 publications

References 43 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

Non-biomedical sources for systematic reviews of pharmaceutical policy

Cost and cost-effectiveness of point-of-care testing and treatment for sexually transmitted and genital infections in pregnancy in low-income and middle-income countries: a systematic review protocol

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About