Evidence and Value: Impact on DEcisionMaking – the EVIDEM framework and potential applications

Goetghebeur, Mireille; Wagner, Monika; Khoury, Hanane; Levitt, Randy J.; Erickson, Lonny J.; Rindress, Donna

doi:10.1186/1472-6963-8-270

Cited by 195 publications

(204 citation statements)

References 60 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

191

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The need for a contemporary reporting guidance for economic evaluations was recently identified by researchers and biomedical journal editors [8]. The CHEERS statement attempts to consolidate and update previous efforts [9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20] into a single useful reporting guidance. The primary audiences for the CHEERS statement are researchers reporting economic evaluations and the editors and peer reviewers evaluating their publication potential.…”

Section: Aim and Scopementioning

confidence: 99%

Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) Statement

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Economic evaluations of health interventions pose a particular challenge for reporting. There is also a need to consolidate and update existing guidelines and promote their use in a user friendly manner. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement is an attempt to consolidate and update previous health economic evaluation guidelines efforts into one current, useful reporting guidance. The primary audiences for the CHEERS statement are researchers reporting economic evaluations and the editors and peer reviewers assessing them for publication.The need for new reporting guidance was identified by a survey of medical editors. A list of possible items based on a systematic review was created. A two round, modified Delphi panel consisting of representatives from academia, clinical practice, industry, government, and the editorial community was conducted. Out of 44 candidate items, 24 items and accompanying recommendations were developed. The recommendations are contained in a user friendly, 24 item checklist. A copy of the statement, accompanying checklist, and this report can be found on the ISPOR Health Economic Evaluations Publication Guidelines Task Force website (www.ispor.org/TaskForces/EconomicPubGuidelines.asp).We hope CHEERS will lead to better reporting, and ultimately, better health decisions. To facilitate dissemination and uptake, the CHEERS statement is being copublished across 10 health economics and medical journals. We encourage other journals and groups, to endorse CHEERS. The author team plans to review the checklist for an update in five years.Health economic evaluations are conducted to inform resource allocation decisions. Economic evaluation has been defined as ''the comparative analysis of alternative courses of action in terms of both their costs and their consequences.'' [1] All economic evaluations assess costs, but approaches to measuring and valuing the consequences of health interventions may differ (see Box). Economic evaluations have been widely applied in health policy, including the assessment of prevention programmes (such as vaccination, screening, and health promotion), diagnostics, treatment interventions (such as drugs and surgical procedures), organisation of care, and rehabilitation. Economic evaluations are increasingly being used for decision making and are an important component of programmes for health technology assessment internationally [2]. Reporting Challenges and Shortcomings in Health Economic EvaluationsCompared with clinical studies, which report the consequences of an intervention only, economic evaluations require more reporting space for additional items, such as resource use, costs, preference related information, and cost effectiveness results. This creates challenges for editors, reviewers, and those who wish to scrutinise a study's findings [3]. There is evidence that the quality of reporting of economic evaluations varies widely and could potentially benefit from improved quality assurance mechanisms [4,5].Wi...

show abstract

Section: Aim and Scopementioning

confidence: 99%

Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) Statement

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…*3 Dionne et al, 2015Dolan, 2010;Duthie et al, 1999;Le Gales & Moatti, 1990;Gibson et al, 2006;Gurtner, 2014;Hilgerink et al, 2011;Johnson et al, 2009;Lasry et al, 2011;Mullen, 2004;Ritrovato et al, 2015;Tannahill, 2008;Wilson et al, 2006;Wilson et al, 2007;Youngkong et al, 2012a;Youngkong et al, 2012b. *4 de Greef-van der Sandt et al, 2016;Vuorenkoski et al, 2008;Youngkong et al, 2009. *5 Diaby & Goeree , 2014Goetghebeur et al, 2008;Goetghebeur et al, 2010;Goetghebeur et al, 2012;Golan & Hansen, 2010;Hailey, 2009;Menon et al, 2010;Miot et al, 2012;Mullen, 2004;Tony et al, 2011;University of York, 2002;Wilson et al, 2007. *6 Golan & Hansen, 2010;Johnson et al, 2009;Martin et al, 2001;Meagher, 2010;Noorani et al, 2007;Simoens, 2014;Vuorenkoski et al, 2008. *7 Bots & Hulshof, 2000Koopmanschap et al, 2010;Mullen, 2004.…”

Section: (("Decision Making"[mesh] Not Shar*[tiab]) or ("Decision Supunclassified

“…*10 Hailey, 2009Johnson et al, 2009;Martin et al, 2001. *11 Adunlin et al, 2015;Andreae et al, 2009;de Greef-van der Sandt et al, 2016;Diaby & Goeree, 2014;Dionne et al, 2009;Goetghebeur et al, 2008;Goetghebeur et al, 2010;Goetghebeur et al, 2012;Golan & Hansen, 2010;Gurtner, 2014;Hailey, 2009;Hilgerink et al, 2011;Johnson et al, 2009;Miot et al, 2012;Ritrovato et al, 2015;Sloane et al, 2003;Tannahill, 2008;Tony et al, 2011;Tromp & Baltussen, 2012;Venhorst et al, 2014. *12 Duthie et al, 1999;Youngkong et al, 2009. *13 Martin et al, 2001Mühlbacher & Kaczynski, 2015.…”

Section: (("Decision Making"[mesh] Not Shar*[tiab]) or ("Decision Supunclassified

“…*19 Hofmann, 2005Lehoux & Williams-Jones, 2007;Menon et al, 2010;Tannahill, 2008. *20 Golan & Hansen, 2010;Hummel et al, 2012;Martin et al, 2001;Mühlbacher & Kaczynski, 2015;Mullen, 2004;Wilson et al, 2006;Wilson et al, 2009. *21 Goetghebeur et al, 2010;Gurtner, 2014;Menon et al, 2010;Tannahill, 2008. *22 Andreae et al, 2009;Baltussen et al, 2007;Defechereux et al, 2012;Diaby & Goeree, 2014;Dionne et al, 2015;Goetghebeur et al, 2008;Goetghebeur et al, 2010;Goetghebeur et al, 2012;Golan & Hansen, 2010;Jehu-Appiah et al, 2008;Kolasa et al, 2016;Koopmanschap et al, 2010;Miot et al, 2012;Simoens, 2014;Tony et al, 2011;Vuorenkoski et al, 2008;Youngkong et al, 2009. *23 Andreae et al, 2009;Duthie et al, 1999;Ghaffar, 2009;Johnson et al, 2009;Menon et al, 2010;Noorani et al, 2007;Tromp & Baltussen, 2012;Wilson et al, 2007;Youngkong et al, 2009;Youngkong, 2014. *24 Marsh et al, 2013;…”

Section: (("Decision Making"[mesh] Not Shar*[tiab]) or ("Decision Supunclassified

“…*16 Goetghebeur et al, 2010Miot et al, 2012. *17 Adunlin et al, 2015;Goetghebeur et al, 2008;Goetghebeur et al, 2012;Mühlbacher & Kaczynski, 2015;Thokala & Duenas, 2012;Tony et al, 2011. *18 Irving et al, 2010Koopmanschap et al, 2010.…”

Section: (("Decision Making"[mesh] Not Shar*[tiab]) or ("Decision Supmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Análise de Decisão Multicritérios (MCDA): uma revisão rápida sobre os critérios utilizados na Avaliação de Tecnologias em Saúde

Souza¹,

Santos²,

Cintra³

2018

JBES

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

RESUMOObjetivo: Identificar os vários critérios utilizados por agências e órgãos governamentais internacionais na Avaliação de Tecnologias em Saúde (ATS). Métodos: Foi realizada uma revisão rápida com busca estruturada na base de dados Medline (via PubMed) e Lilacs complementada por busca na literatura cinzenta, sem restrição de idioma. Incluíram-se estudos da área de saúde que descreviam critérios e que utilizaram o método MCDA (Análise de Decisão Multicritérios) na ATS. Excluíram-se estudos que avaliaram apenas uma tecnologia específica ou contexto restrito. Os critérios foram agregados e sumarizados conforme opinião de especialistas em ATS. Resultados: Foram identificadas 3.746 publicações, sendo 27 selecionadas. Os critérios extraídos foram categorizados e seus respectivos atributos foram listados. Dez categorias foram apresentadas: benefício e risco da intervenção (4 critérios); impacto da doença (4 critérios); impacto econômico (5 critérios); contexto terapêutico da intervenção (4 critérios); qualidade e incerteza da evidência (4 critérios); implementação da intervenção (5 critérios); benefícios para a sociedade (5 critérios); benefícios para o sistema de saúde público (5 critérios); benefícios para a indústria (1 critério); e outros (3 critérios). Os atributos mais prevalentes foram: custo-efetividade; segurança e tolerabilidade; impacto orçamentário para o sistema/plano de saúde; gravidade da doença; equidade; efetividade; custo. Conclusões: Os órgãos decisores utilizam grande variedade de critérios para o MCDA, refletindo visões e valores diferentes entre as culturas. O estudo fornece informação para discussão no contexto brasileiro de uma lista mais ampla e possível padronização de critérios a serem utilizados na tomada de decisão pública ou privada sobre a incorporação de novas tecnologias. ABSTRACTObjective: To identify the various criteria used by international government agencies and bodies in Health Technology Assessment (HTA). Methods: A rapid review was conducted with a structured search in the Medline database (via PubMed) and Lilacs supplemented by a search in the gray literature, without a restriction of language. Inclusion criteria were studies in health context, describing the criteria and using the MCDA (Multicriteria Decision Analysis) method in HTA. We excluded studies that assessed only one specific technology or restricted context. The criteria were aggregated and summarized according to the opinion of HTA experts. Results: A total of 3,746 publications were identified, of which 27 were selected. The extracted criteria were categorized, and their respective

show abstract

Quantifying Preferences in Drug Benefit‐Risk Decisions

Tervonen

Angelis

Hockley

et al. 2019

Clin Pharma and Therapeutics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Benefit‐risk assessment is used in various phases along the drug lifecycle, such as marketing authorization and surveillance, health technology assessment (HTA), and clinical decisions, to understand whether, and for which patients, a drug has a favorable or more valuable profile with reference to one or more comparators. Such assessments are inherently preference‐based as several clinical and nonclinical outcomes of varying importance might act as evaluation criteria, and decision makers must establish acceptable trade‐offs between these outcomes. Different healthcare stakeholder perspectives, such as those from patients and healthcare professionals, are key for informing benefit‐risk trade‐offs. However, the degree to which such preferences inform the decision is often unclear as formal preference‐based evaluation frameworks are generally not used for regulatory decisions, and, if used, rarely communicated in HTA decisions. We argue that for better decisions, as well as for reasons of transparency, preferences in benefit‐risk decisions should more often be quantified and communicated explicitly.

show abstract

Evidence and Value: Impact on DEcisionMaking – the EVIDEM framework and potential applications

Cited by 195 publications

References 60 publications

Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) Statement

Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) Statement

Análise de Decisão Multicritérios (MCDA): uma revisão rápida sobre os critérios utilizados na Avaliação de Tecnologias em Saúde

Quantifying Preferences in Drug Benefit‐Risk Decisions

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About