Quality assessment of economic evaluation studies in pediatric surgery: A systematic review

Kamdem, Arnaud Fotso; Nerich, Virginie; Auber, F.; Jantchou, P; Ecarnot, Fiona; Woronoff‐Lemsi, Marie‐Christine

doi:10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2015.01.012

Cited by 5 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 129 publications

(79 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

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

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…4 Unfortunately, the most common type of economic evaluation in the surgical literature is partial economic evaluation (i.e., cost analysis). [5][6][7][8][9] The usefulness of cost analyses is generally low, as often only costs are compared and all other outcomes are assumed to be equivalent. 3 Many new interventions are purported to be "cost-effective," but this term is often misused in surgical literature.…”

Section: Ementioning

confidence: 99%

“…The compliance scores for methodologic and reporting quality of full economic evaluations in hand surgery were found to be high-Drummond's checklist, 27.08 of 33 (82.05 percent); QHES, 79.76 of 100 (79.76 percent); and CHEC, 15.54 of 19 (81.78 percent)-and were superior to the quality of economic evaluations in some specialties. 5,7,8,[23][24][25][26] For example, in a systematic review, the average methodologic quality score of economic evaluations in otolaryngology was 54.7 of 100 (QHES). 24 A recent systematic review found an average reporting quality (CHEERS) score of 14 (57 percent) for economic evaluations published in plastic surgery.…”

Section: Ementioning

confidence: 99%

“…5 A systematic review of economic evaluations in vascular surgery found that most publications ( n = 183; 78 percent) were cost analyses. 6 Furthermore, Kamdem et al 7 found that only 43.7 percent ( n = 52) of economic evolutions in pediatric surgery were full economic evaluation studies.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

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

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%

Section: Ementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Ementioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

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

“…Thus, none of the studies reviewed here carried out a full economic evaluation reported complete information and used high-quality data for all analysis components. Other studies have identified methodological flaws in economic evaluations in healthcare, regardless of the type of intervention or health product [ 46 – 49 ]. It is, therefore, difficult to attribute these flaws exclusively to the type of health product studied here: medical devices.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Systematic Review of the Level of Evidence in Economic Evaluations of Medical Devices: The Example of Vertebroplasty and Kyphoplasty

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ContextEconomic evaluations are far less frequently reported for medical devices than for drugs. In addition, little is known about the quality of existing economic evaluations, particularly for innovative devices, such as those used in vertebroplasty and kyphoplasty.ObjectiveTo assess the level of evidence provided by the available economic evaluations for vertebroplasty and kyphoplasty.Data SourcesA systematic review of articles in English or French listed in the MEDLINE, PASCAL, COCHRANE and National Health Service Economic Evaluation databases, with limits on publication date (up to the date of the review, March 2014).Study SelectionWe included only economic evaluations of vertebroplasty or kyphoplasty. Editorial and methodological articles were excluded.Data ExtractionData were extracted from articles by two authors working independently and using two analysis grids to measure the quality of economic evaluations.Data SynthesisTwenty-one studies met our inclusion criteria. All were published between 2008 and 2014. Eighteen (86%) were full economic evaluations. Cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) was the most frequent type of economic evaluation, and was present in 11 (52%) studies. Only three CEAs complied fully with the British Medical Journal checklist. The quality of the data sources used in the 21 studies was high, but the CEAs conforming to methodological guidelines did not use high-quality data sources for all components of the analysis.ConclusionsThis systematic review shows that the level of evidence in economic evaluations of vertebroplasty and kyphoplasty is low, despite the recent publication of a large number of studies. This finding highlights the challenges to be faced to improve the quality of economic evaluations of medical devices.

show abstract

Quality of randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews in pediatric surgery: A cross‐sectional meta‐research study

Jiang,

Wang,

Sperandei

et al. 2024

Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundThere are few randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in pediatric surgery, and their risk of bias is unknown. There is also little known about the methodological or reporting quality of systematic reviews (with or without meta‐analyses) in pediatric surgery. Therefore, we conducted a cross‐sectional meta‐research study to determine the risk of bias and reporting quality of RCTs and systematic reviews and meta‐analyses in pediatric surgery, and the associations between these outcomes and study characteristics.MethodsWe searched MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, JBI EBP Database, Centre for Reviews and Dissemination and Web of Science for all RCTs and systematic reviews in pediatric surgery published in 2021. We also searched the 2021 indexes of high‐impact pediatric surgery journals. We assessed the risk of bias and reporting quality of RCTs using the RoB 2 and CONSORT tools respectively. We assessed the same parameters for systematic reviews and meta‐analyses using the ROBIS and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐analyses tools.FindingsWe found 82 RCTs and 289 systematic reviews/meta‐analyses published in 2021. More than half (n = 46, 56%) of RCTs and almost all (n = 278, 96%) systematic reviews and meta‐analyses were at high risk of bias. Only one (1%) RCT and four (1%) systematic reviews and meta‐analyses were adequately reported. Less than half (n = 40, 49%) of RCTs and just over a quarter (n = 77, 27%) of systematic reviews and meta‐analyses had a registered protocol. Surprisingly, we found that more than half of systematic reviews and meta‐analyse (n = 162, 56.1%), had no risk of bias assessment.ConclusionsRecently published RCTs and systematic reviews in pediatric surgery are at high risk of bias and have poor reporting quality. Journals, universities, and research institutions should train authors to conduct and report higher quality studies and develop strategies to reduce risk of bias. However, research with high bias and low reporting does not necessarily lack value.

show abstract

Quality assessment of economic evaluation studies in pediatric surgery: A systematic review

Cited by 5 publications

References 129 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

A Systematic Review of the Level of Evidence in Economic Evaluations of Medical Devices: The Example of Vertebroplasty and Kyphoplasty

Quality of randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews in pediatric surgery: A cross‐sectional meta‐research study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About