Examining the Value and Quality of Health Economic Analyses: Implications of Utilizing the QHES

Ofman, Joshua J.; Sullivan, Sean D.; Neumann, Peter J.; Chiou, Chiun–Fang; Henning, James M.; Wade, Sally; Hay, Joel W.

doi:10.18553/jmcp.2003.9.1.53

Cited by 291 publications

(272 citation statements)

References 68 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

262

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…[34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47] In addition, two studies performed a multiway sensitivity analysis 37,45 and nine studies a probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA). 35,[37][38][39][40][41][42][43]46 Quality assessment A review of Szucs et al 49 evaluated the quality of 11 of the included studies using the British Medical Journal (BMJ)'s checklist by Drummond and Jefferson 50 and the "Quality of Health Economic Studies" evaluation tool by Ofman et al 51 Szucs et al 49 concluded that the quality of these studies varied from 'Moderate' 37,38,4337,38,43 to 'Moderate-Good' 35,36,[39][40][41][42]44 . We assessed the three other included studies using the same criteria as Szucs et al 49 used.…”

Section: Study Selectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cost-effectiveness of vaccination against herpes zoster

Boer

Wilschut²,

Postma

2014

Human Vaccines & Immunotherapeutics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Study Selectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cost-effectiveness of vaccination against herpes zoster

Boer

Wilschut²,

Postma

2014

Human Vaccines & Immunotherapeutics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…In this study, a review of the pharmacoeconomic evaluations for the use of Levodopa in Parkinson's disease was carried out, based on the QHES instrument [22], which qualifies methodological quality and has been used by other authors previously [45][46][47][48][49].Only the articles that met inclusion criteria and were considered of cost-utility were taken, finding that the five articles analyzed obtained an overall average score of 77.2 out of 100. This reflects that these studies are of good quality, and this is probably attributable to the fact that they were recently carried out following the current guidelines.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The QHES (Quality of Health Economic Studies) instrument was implemented to evaluate the selected articles [22]. 16 criteria were established in the instrument, which determined the three types of health care economic analysis: minimizing costs, costeffectiveness, cost-utility; as shown in Table 1.…”

Section: Quality Assessmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

The assessment of pharmacoeconomic studies quality of Levodopa’s use for the management of Parkinson’s diseases, 2010-2015

Gutiérrez

Becerra

Rojas

2017

Rev. colomb. cienc. quim. farm.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SummaryLevodopa (LD) has been the first choice in the management of Parkinson's disease (PD), since its introduction in the drug market; however, its prolonged use is related to the occurrence of motor complications, affecting the functionality and quality of life. Parkinson's disease is one of the most frequent among the neurodegenerative diseases in the world, and it is expected that the number of people who suffer it, will increase due to global population aging. The PD represents, nowadays and for the future, a high economic burden from all perspectives, including patients, payers, and society. So it is necessary to know about the use of LD in its treatment and to realize the quality of pharmacoeconomic studies in the past five years, to identify reliable sources of information related to the costs and benefits of this medication to contribute in making decisions. The aim of this paper is to assess the methodological quality of pharmacoeconomic studies related to the use of LD in PD, specifically those that are identified as cost-utility studies, applying the QHES instrument. A total of 19 articles were found, of which 5 met the inclusion criteria and were subjected to examination. The average overall score obtained after the evaluation was 77.2 out of 100, making evident a good quality of studies according to the method used.Keywords: Levodopa, Parkinson's disease, cost-utility, methodological quality, QHES (Quality of Health Economic Studies). La Levodopa (LD) ha sido desde su introducción en el mercado la primera elección en el manejo de la enfermedad de Parkinson (EP); sin embargo, su uso prolongado está relacionado con la aparición de complicaciones motoras, afectándose la funcionalidad y calidad de vida. La EP es una de las enfermedades neurodegenerativas que se presenta con mayor frecuencia en el mundo y se espera que el número de personas que la padecen aumente, debido al envejecimiento poblacional a nivel mundial. La EP representa, actualmente y a futuro, una alta carga económica desde todas las perspectivas, incluyendo: pacientes, pagadores y la sociedad; por lo cual es necesario conocer el uso de la LD en el tratamiento de la misma y lograr determinar la calidad de los estudios farmacoeconómicos realizados en los últimos cinco años, para identificar fuentes fiables de información relacionadas con los costos y los beneficios de este medicamento que aporten en la toma de decisiones. El objetivo de este artículo es evaluar la calidad metodológica de los estudios farmacoeconómicos relacionados con el uso de la LD en la EP, específicamente aquellos que se cataloguen como estudios de costo-utilidad, aplicando el instrumento QHES. Se encontraron en total 19 artículos, de los cuales cinco cumplieron los criterios de inclusión y fueron sometidos al respectivo análisis. El puntaje global promedio obtenido posterior a la evaluación fue de 77,2 sobre 100, haciendo evidente una buena calidad de los estudios de acuerdo con el método utilizado.Palabras clave: Levodopa, enfermedad de Parkinson, costo-utilidad, ca...

show abstract

“…Responses are binary and questions answered ''yes'' receive the full point value, whereas questions answered ''no'' receive zero points. The questionnaire was derived by a panel of eight experts in health economics and the point values were derived using a random-effects general least-squares regression based on a conjoint analysis of survey results from 120 international health economists [41]. Cumulative scores for the Quality of Health Economic Studies instrument range from 0 to 100.…”

Section: Quality Scoringmentioning

confidence: 99%

Current Status of Cost Utility Analyses in Total Joint Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review

Nwachukwu

Bozic

Schairer

et al. 2015

Clinical Orthopaedics &Amp; Related Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Total joint arthroplasty (TJA), although considered to be highly beneficial, is associated with substantial costs to the US healthcare system. Cost utility analysis has become an increasingly important means to objectively evaluate the value of a healthcare intervention from the perspective of both extending the quantity and improving the quality of life. Relatively little is known about the overall cost utility analysis evidence base in TJA. Questions/purposes The goals of this review were to (1) determine the cost utility of TJA interventions; (2) critically assess the quality of published US-based cost utility analyses using the Quality of Health Economic Studies instrument; and (3) determine what characteristics were common among studies receiving a high quality score. Methods A systematic review of the literature using the MEDLINE database was performed to compile findings and critically appraise US-based cost utility analysis studies for total hip and knee arthroplasty. Based on review of 676 identified articles, 23 studies were included. We used the Quality of Health Economic Studies instrument to assess study quality and one-sided Fisher's exact tests were applied to analyze the predictors of high-quality cost utility analysis. Results Very few studies compare the cost utility of TJA versus nonoperative intervention; however, the available evidence suggests that TJA can be cost-saving and is highly cost-effective compared with conservative management of end-stage arthritis. The majority of identified studies are focused on the cost utility of new implant technologies or comparisons among surgical alternatives. These studies suggest that the upfront costs associated with new technologies are cost-effective when there is a major reduction in a future cost. The quality of identified studies is quite high (Quality of Health Economic Studies Instrument score: mean 86.5; range, 63-100). National funding source (p = 0.095) and lifetime horizon for analysis (p = 0.07) correlate with high-quality evidence but do not reach significance.

show abstract

Examining the Value and Quality of Health Economic Analyses: Implications of Utilizing the QHES

Cited by 291 publications

References 68 publications

Cost-effectiveness of vaccination against herpes zoster

Cost-effectiveness of vaccination against herpes zoster

The assessment of pharmacoeconomic studies quality of Levodopa’s use for the management of Parkinson’s diseases, 2010-2015

Current Status of Cost Utility Analyses in Total Joint Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About