Quality of economic evaluations of ventricular assist devices: A systematic review

Abstract

Objective Because of a lack of suitable heart donors, alternatives to transplantation are required. These alternatives can have high costs. The aim of this study was to perform a systematic review of cost-effectiveness studies of ventricular assist devices (VADs) and to assess the level of evidence of relevant studies. The purpose was not to present economic findings. Methods A systematic review was performed using four electronic databases to identify health economic evaluation studies dealing with VADs. The methodological quality and reporting quality of the studies was assessed using three different tools, the Drummond, Cooper, and CHEERS (Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards) checklists. Results Of the 1,258 publications identified, thirteen articles were included in this review. Twelve studies were cost–utility analyses and one was a cost-effectiveness analysis. According to the Cooper hierarchy scale, the quality of the data used was heterogeneous. The level of evidence used for clinical effect sizes, safety data, and baseline clinical data was of poor quality. In contrast, cost data were of high quality in most studies. Quality of reporting varied between studies, with an average score of 17.4 (range 15–19) according to the CHEERS checklist. Conclusion The current study shows that the quality of clinical data used in economic evaluations of VADs is rather poor in general. This is a concern that deserves greater attention in the process of health technology assessment of medical devices.

Reporting Quality in Health Economic Evaluation Studies of Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors: A Systematic Review

“…In line with the present study, some performed systematic reviews of HEEs examining reporting quality in the fields of cardiology, neurology, plastic surgery, and artificial intelligence in healthcare. [19][20][21][22] Some of them also reported adherence to each item of CHEERS 2013, and similar trends, e.g., insufficient reporting in the Methods section, such as the study by Tai et al, were observed. 20,21 All of these studies commonly used CHEERS 2013; however, they share common features.…”

“…17 To date, the CHEERS statement has been reported in several systematic reviews of HEE studies or in those focusing on the quality of reporting in HEE research. [18][19][20][21][22] However, most studies have used it as a scoring tool, which is stated in the standards as misuse of the tool, 15 or in the context of assessing methodological quality, resulting in few accurate assessments of reporting transparency. Furthermore, there is only one previous systematic review of HEEs of ICIs.…”

Quality of economic evaluations of drug-coated balloons and drug-eluting stents in peripheral artery disease: a systematic review

“…The above-mentioned methodology of combining several checklists was based on previous work on the quality of economic evaluations (16;17). To our knowledge, no single checklist exists that is able to measure both the reporting and the methodological quality of economic evaluations.…”