Systematic Review on the Cost-Effectiveness of Therapeutic Education to Prevent the Development and Progression of Type 2 Diabetes

Odnoletkova, Irina; Goderis, Geert; Pil, Lore; Nobels, Frank; Aertgeerts, Bert; Annemans, Lieven; Ramaekers, Dirk

doi:10.1016/j.jval.2013.08.744

Cited by 8 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A study of Wilby et al 54 examined the quality of economic evaluations in epilepsy to develop an economic model (without a standardized questionnaire) and concluded that there were problems in studies basing conclusions on a small number of trials and using inappropriate assumptions to extrapolate beyond the length of time of the study. A study of Odenoletkova et al 11 examined the quality of therapeutic education interventions on the development and progression of type 2 diabetes in a similar way (e.g., using the CHEC) and revealed scores similar to those in our study. However, none of their included articles had a perfect score.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 82%

“…This is an extension of the original Consensus Health Economic Criteria (CHEC) checklist to include questions about model-based economic evaluations. 10,11 To determine the quality of reporting of the included studies, the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement was used. 12 To limit the possibility of biased results, two reviewers independently reviewed both the data extraction form and the quality appraisal of the included studies (BFMW and OG).…”

Section: Data Extraction and Quality Assessmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The total score per article was then divided by all the applicable items for that particular study. 11 The same calculation was applied for the CHEERS, the only exception being, there is no "suboptimal" in the CHEERS.…”

Section: Data Extraction and Quality Assessmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

A systematic review of economic evaluations of treatments for patients with epilepsy

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The increasing number of treatment options and the high costs associated with epilepsy have fostered the development of economic evaluations in epilepsy. It is important to examine the availability and quality of these economic evaluations and to identify potential research gaps. As well as looking at both pharmacologic (antiepileptic drugs [AEDs]) and nonpharmacologic (e.g., epilepsy surgery, ketogenic diet, vagus nerve stimulation) therapies, this review examines the methodologic quality of the full economic evaluations included. Literature search was performed in MEDLINE, EMBASE, NHS Economic Evaluation Database (NHS EED), Econlit, Web of Science, and CEA Registry. In addition, Cochrane Reviews, Cochrane DARE and Cochrane Health Technology Assessment Databases were used. To identify relevant studies, predefined clinical search strategies were combined with a search filter designed to identify health economic studies. Specific search strategies were devised for the following topics: (1) AEDs, (2) patients with cognitive deficits, (3) elderly patients, (4) epilepsy surgery, (5) ketogenic diet, (6) vagus nerve stimulation, and (7) treatment of (non)convulsive status epilepticus. A total of 40 publications were included in this review, 29 (73%) of which were articles about pharmacologic interventions. Mean quality score of all articles on the Consensus Health Economic Criteria (CHEC)-extended was 81.8%, the lowest quality score being 21.05%, whereas five studies had a score of 100%. Looking at the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS), the average quality score was 77.0%, the lowest being 22.7%, and four studies rated as 100%. There was a substantial difference in methodology in all included articles, which hampered the attempt to combine information meaningfully. Overall, the methodologic quality was acceptable; however, some studies performed significantly worse than others. The heterogeneity between the studies stresses the need to define a reference case (e.g., how should an economic evaluation within epilepsy be performed) and to derive consensus on what constitutes "standard optimal care."

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 82%

Section: Data Extraction and Quality Assessmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A systematic review of economic evaluations of treatments for patients with epilepsy

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The recommended approach to assess risk of bias in reviews of cost-effectiveness studies is by means of the Consensus Health Economics Criteria (CHEC)-extended checklist [30, 31]. We chose to use a version that was adapted for specific use in diabetes mellitus type 2 (DMT2), as described in a study by Odnoletkova et al [32]. This risk of bias approach was summarized using the Review Manager software.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cost-effectiveness of controlling gestational diabetes mellitus: a systematic review

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Neither screening nor treating GDM seems to be convincingly cost-effective from the studies reviewed. However, all studies were done in high-income countries with obviously different health systems than low-/middle-income countries (LMIC) have. Since detection of GDM may be relatively poor in LMIC, screening might be more worthwhile in these countries. Comprehensive research is necessary in LMIC, including the potential outcomes of assessing its cost-effectiveness. Favorable cost-effectiveness could help in bridging the need for and access to increased diabetes screening in early pregnancy in these countries.

show abstract

“…A cost‐effectiveness threshold of US$50 000/QALY was applied . For quality assessment, reviewers used the Extended Consensus on Health Economic Criteria (CHEC) List, in which the CHEC List was extended with one question on modelling assumptions and validation. Twenty items were scored using: Yes (1), Suboptimal (0.5), No (0) and Not Applicable.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Economic evaluations of interventions to manage hyperphosphataemia in adult haemodialysis patients: A systematic review

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This is an interesting systematic review of studies specifically addressing the economic evaluation of interventions to lower phosphate in dialysis patients. Only 12 studies provided information, all relating to phosphate binders. In general, the overall quality of these studies was suboptimal; therefore, firm conclusions were difficult to be drawn about which binders were best, although calcium-based binders seemed most cost-effective as first-line therapy. ABSTRACT:Managing hyperphosphataemia in haemodialysis patients is resourceintensive. A search for cost-effective interventions in this field is needed to inform decisions on the allocation of healthcare resources. NHSEED, MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL were searched for full economic evaluations of hyperphosphataemia-managing interventions in adult haemodialysis patients, published between 2004 and 2014, in English, French, Dutch or German. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of the interventions were up-rated to 2013US$ using Purchasing Power Parity conversion rates and Consumer Price Indices. The quality of included studies was assessed using the Extended Consensus on Health Economic Criteria List. Twelve out of the 1681 retrieved records fulfilled the inclusion criteria. They reported only on one aspect of hyperphosphataemia management, which is the use of phosphate binders (calcium-based and calcium-free, in first-line and sequential use). No economic evaluations of other phosphorus-lowering interventions were found. The included articles derived from five countries and most of them were funded by pharmaceutical companies. The incremental costeffectiveness ratios of phosphate binders ranged between US$11 461 and US$157 760 per quality-adjusted life-year gained. Calcium-based binders (especially calcium acetate) appear to be the optimal cost-effective first-and second-line therapy in prevalent patients, while the calcium-free binder, lanthanum carbonate, might provide good value for money, as second-line therapy, in incident patients. The studies' overall quality was suboptimal. Drawing firm conclusions was not possible due to the quality heterogeneity and inconsistent results. Future high-quality economic evaluations are needed to confirm the findings of this review and to address other interventions to manage hyperphosphataemia in this population.

show abstract

Systematic Review on the Cost-Effectiveness of Therapeutic Education to Prevent the Development and Progression of Type 2 Diabetes

Cited by 8 publications

References 0 publications

A systematic review of economic evaluations of treatments for patients with epilepsy

A systematic review of economic evaluations of treatments for patients with epilepsy

Cost-effectiveness of controlling gestational diabetes mellitus: a systematic review

Economic evaluations of interventions to manage hyperphosphataemia in adult haemodialysis patients: A systematic review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About