Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards Research Articles

Pharmacoeconomic and clinical impact of pharmaceutical service in the intensive care unit: a systematic review

Clinical pharmacy is a fast-growing discipline in Europe, ensuring optimisation and a guarantee of safety in therapeutic management. Within a hospital the intensive care unit (ICU) typically admits the most...

A systematic review of the socioeconomic impact of mechanical thrombectomy for acute ischemic stroke

BackgroundMechanical Thrombectomy (MT) is an efficacious treatment for severe acute ischemic stroke patients. However, access to MT is limited in many parts of the world, partly due to economic barriers. The purpose of this systematic review is to provide an updated frame about the socioeconomic impact of MT. MethodsTo carry out this systematic review we used the PRISMA guidelines. We included scientific articles analyzing the socioeconomic impact of MT for acute ischemic stroke, in which MT was compared to best medical therapy (BMT). The online databases of Pubmed, Scopus and Web of Science were used as main sources of information. To carry out the comparative analysis, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was used, relating the cost to quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). Risk of bias was assessed with the Consensus Health Economic Criteria (CHEC) and the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS). ResultsEight hundred thirty-two studies were identified in this systematic review. As a result, studies that used cost-effectiveness analysis show that MT saves costs in the long term and cost-utility analysis show that the cost per QALY is reasonable with a mean ICER value of $14242.36/QALY. ConclusionsMT has a favorable socioeconomic impact, as derived from cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analyses. Therefore, public policies should encourage the implementation of MT for stroke patients around the world.

Systematic Review of Economic Evaluations of Systemic Treatments for Advanced and Metastatic Gastric Cancer.

Recent advances in the development of biomarker-directed therapy and immunotherapy, for advanced and metastatic gastric cancers, have the potential to improve survival and quality of life.Much attention has been directed towards second- and later-line treatments, and the landscape here is evolving rapidly. However, uncertainty in relative effectiveness, high costs and uncertainty in cost effectiveness represent challenges for decision makers. To identify economic evaluations for the second-line or later-line treatment of advanced and metastatic gastric cancer. Also, to assess key criteria (including model assumptions, inputs and outcomes), reporting completeness andmethodological quality to inform future cost-effectiveness evaluations. A systematic literature search (from database inception to 5 March 2023) of EconLit via EBSCOhost, Cochrane Library (restricted to National Health Service [NHS] Economic Evaluation Database and Health Technology Assessment [HTA] Database), Embase, MEDLINE and of grey literature was conducted. This aimed to identify systemic treatments that align with National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) and European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Clinical Practice Guidelines. Data were collected on key criteria and on reporting completeness and methodological quality. A narrative synthesis focussed on cost-effectiveness and cost-of-illness studies. Outcomes of interest included total and incremental costs and outcomes (life-years and quality-adjusted life-years), ratios of incremental costs per unit outcome and other summary cost and outcome measures. Also, for cost-effectiveness studies, reporting completeness and the methodological quality were assessed using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) and the Philips Checklist, respectively. A total of 19 eligible economic evaluations were identified (cost-effectiveness studies [n = 15] and cost-of-illness studies [n = 4]). There was a general lack of consistency in the methodological approaches taken across studies. In the main, the cost-effectiveness studies indicated that the intervention under consideration was more effective and more costly than the comparator(s). However, most interventions were not cost effective. No studies were fully compliant with reporting-completeness and methodological-quality requirements. Given the lack of consistency in the approaches taken across cost-of-illness studies, outcomes could not be directly compared. To our knowledge, this is the first published systematic literature review that has qualitatively synthesised economic evaluations for advanced and metastatic gastric cancer. There were differences in the approaches taken across the cost-effectiveness studies and the cost-of-illness studies. The conclusions of most of the cost-effectiveness studies were consistent despite identified differences in approaches. In the main, the interventions under consideration were not cost effective, presenting challenges to sustainability and affordability. We highlight a requirement for cost-effectiveness evaluations and for second-line or later-line treatments of advanced and metastatic gastric cancer that consider all relevant comparators and that are compliant with reporting-completeness and methodological-quality requirements. By addressing the methodological gaps identified here, future healthcare decision-making, within the context of this rapidly changing treatment landscape, would be better informed. CRD42023405951.

Economic evaluations of therapeutic drug monitoring interventions in acute hospital-based settings: A systematic review.

Therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) aims to optimize drug therapy. As demand on health resources increases, and the technology underpinning TDM becomes more sophisticated, the economic benefits of TDM in hospitals is unclear. The aim of this systematic review was to summarize the economic evidence that could be used to support investment in TDM in hospital settings. In so doing, we sought to provide guidance for future economic evaluations. Medline, Embase, CENTRAL, Econlit and NHS Economic Evaluation databases were searched (inception to December 2022) for economic evaluations of hospital-based TDM. Two authors reviewed the studies and extracted data. Overall quality of economic analysis reporting was assessed using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) checklist. Ten prospective studies (including six randomized studies) and nine retrospective studies were eligible. Overall study reporting was poor, publications meeting a median (range) of 61% (46-82%) of CHEERS checklist criteria. An antimicrobial TDM intervention for adult patients was the focus of most studies (n = 18). Variable clinical outcomes were reported, and length of stay was the primary economic outcome for most studies (n = 13). The majority of studies determined that TDM was economically and clinically favourable (n = 14), four studies reporting a cost-reduction in patient sub-populations. Significant improvements in both economic and clinical outcomes may be realized with TDM interventions, particularly when targeted to complex patient populations. Attainment of therapeutic target could serve as a feasible surrogate measure of benefit for hospital-based TDM interventions. However, systematic reporting of economic outcomes is needed to inform investment decisions.

A quality appraisal of economic evaluations of community water fluoridation: A systematic review.

To critically appraise the methodological conduct and reporting quality of economic evaluations (EE) of community water fluoridation (CWF). A systematic literature search was conducted in general databases and specialist directories of the economic literature. The Consensus on Health Economic Criteria list (CHEC) appraised the methodological quality while the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) assessed the reporting quality of included studies. A total of 1,138 records were identified, of which 18 met the inclusion criteria. Cost analysis emerged as the most prevalent type of EE, though a growing trend towards conducting full EEs is observed. CHEC revealed the items most frequently unfulfilled were the study design, measurement and valuation of costs and outcomes, while CHEERS also identified reporting deficiencies in these aspects. Furthermore, the review highlights subtleties in methodological aspects that may not be discerned by CHEC, such as the estimation of the impact of fluoridation and the inclusion of treatment savings within cost estimates. While numerous studies were conducted before publication of these assessment instruments, this review reveals that a noteworthy subset of studies exhibited good methodological conduct and reporting quality. There has been a steady improvement in the methodological and reporting quality over time, with recently published EEs largely adhering to best practice guidelines. The evidence presented will assist policymakers in leveraging the available evidence effectively to inform resource allocation decisions. It may also serve as a resource for researchers to enhance the methodological and reporting standards of future EEs of CWF.

P.034 Cost-effectiveness of treatment strategies for medically refractory pediatric epilepsy: a systematic review

Background: Medically refractory pediatric epilepsy is a disorder that can cause significant financial and physical burden. Although multiple treatments exist, cost-effectiveness remains unclear. We conducted a systematic review to assess cost-effectiveness of treatments for medically refractory pediatric epilepsy and to summarize key issues and areas for further inquiry. Methods: We searched MEDLINE and 6 other databases up to July 2022. We included partial and full economic evaluations (EEs) on treatments for medically refractory pediatric epilepsy. Pairs of reviewers independently screened the literature, extracted data, and assessed quality using the 24-item Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) checklist. We extracted data on study characteristics, health outcomes, model design, costs, and treatment characteristics. Results: We identified 37 eligible studies for analysis, 19 of which were partial EEs and 18 were full EEs. Study quality, outcomes reported, treatment comparators, and factors included in cost calculations were common influential factors in study results. Vagus nerve stimulation and cannabinoid oil were the most consistently cost-effective, in 6 of 7 and 1 of 2 studies, respectively. Other treatments were inconsistently cost-effective. Conclusions: The cost-effectiveness of treatments for medically refractory pediatric epilepsy was not definitive. Consistency in study design and inputs is necessary for future comparison of epilepsy treatment.

Economic Evaluations of Digital Health Interventions for Patients With Heart Failure: Systematic Review.

Digital health interventions (DHIs) have shown promising results in enhancing the management of heart failure (HF). Although health care interventions are increasingly being delivered digitally, with growing evidence on the potential cost-effectiveness of adopting them, there has been little effort to collate and synthesize the findings. This study's objective was to systematically review the economic evaluations that assess the adoption of DHIs in the management and treatment of HF. A systematic review was conducted using 3 electronic databases: PubMed, EBSCOhost, and Scopus. Articles reporting full economic evaluations of DHIs for patients with HF published up to July 2023 were eligible for inclusion. Study characteristics, design (both trial based and model based), input parameters, and main results were extracted from full-text articles. Data synthesis was conducted based on the technologies used for delivering DHIs in the management of patients with HF, and the findings were analyzed narratively. The PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines were followed for this systematic review. The reporting quality of the included studies was evaluated using the CHEERS (Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards) guidelines. Overall, 27 economic evaluations were included in the review. The economic evaluations were based on models (13/27, 48%), trials (13/27, 48%), or a combination approach (1/27, 4%). The devices evaluated included noninvasive remote monitoring devices (eg, home telemonitoring using digital tablets or specific medical devices that enable transmission of physiological data), telephone support, mobile apps and wearables, remote monitoring follow-up in patients with implantable medical devices, and videoconferencing systems. Most of the studies (24/27, 89%) used cost-utility analysis. The majority of the studies (25/27, 93%) were conducted in high-income countries, particularly European countries (16/27, 59%) such as the United Kingdom and the Netherlands. Mobile apps and wearables, remote monitoring follow-up in patients with implantable medical devices, and videoconferencing systems yielded cost-effective results or even emerged as dominant strategies. However, conflicting results were observed, particularly in noninvasive remote monitoring devices and telephone support. In 15% (4/27) of the studies, these DHIs were found to be less costly and more effective than the comparators (ie, dominant), while 33% (9/27) reported them to be more costly but more effective with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios below the respective willingness-to-pay thresholds (ie, cost-effective). Furthermore, in 11% (3/27) of the studies, noninvasive remote monitoring devices and telephone support were either above the willingness-to-pay thresholds or more costly than, yet as effective as, the comparators (ie, not cost-effective). In terms of reporting quality, the studies were classified as good (20/27, 74%), moderate (6/27, 22%), or excellent (1/27, 4%). Despite the conflicting results, the main findings indicated that, overall, DHIs were more cost-effective than non-DHI alternatives. PROSPERO CRD42023388241; https://tinyurl.com/2p9axpmc.

Pharmacoeconomic Evaluation of Homeopathy: Assessing Efficacy, Economics, and Policy Perspectives

Background: In contemporary healthcare, evidence-based practices are fundamental for ensuring optimal patient outcomes and resource allocation. Essential steps for conducting pharmacoeconomic studies in homeopathy involve study design, intervention identification, comparator selection, outcome measures definition, data collection, cost analysis, effectiveness analysis, cost-effectiveness analysis, cost-benefit analysis, sensitivity analysis, reporting, and peer review. While conventional medicine undergoes rigorous pharmacoeconomic evaluations, the field of homeopathy often lacks such scrutiny. However, the importance of pharmacoeconomic studies in homeopathy is increasingly recognized, given its growing integration into modern healthcare systems. Methods: A systematic search of electronic databases (PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science) was performed to identify relevant literature using keywords such as "homeopathy," "pharmacoeconomics," and "efficacy." Articles meeting inclusion criteria were assessed for quality using established frameworks like the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS). Data synthesis was conducted thematically, focusing on study objectives, methodologies, findings, and conclusions. Results: Ten pharmacoeconomic studies within homeopathy were identified, demonstrating varying degrees of compliance with reporting guidelines. While most studies reported costs comprehensively, some lacked methodological transparency, particularly in analytic methods. Heterogeneity was observed in study designs and outcome measures, reflecting the complexity of economic evaluation in homeopathy. Quality of evidence varied, with some studies exhibiting robust methodologies while others had limitations. Conclusion: Based on the review, recommendations include promoting homeopathic clinics, providing policy support, adopting collaborative healthcare models, and leveraging India's homeopathic resources. Pharmacoeconomic studies in homeopathy are crucial for evaluating its economic implications compared to conventional medicine. While certain studies demonstrated methodological rigor, opportunities exist for enhancing consistency, transparency, and quality in economic evaluations. Addressing these challenges is essential for informing decision-making regarding the economic aspects of homeopathic interventions

Model-Based Economic Evaluations of Interventions for Dementia: An Updated Systematic Review and Quality Assessment.

There has been an increase in model-based economic evaluations of interventions for dementia. The most recent systematic review of economic evaluations for dementia highlighted weaknesses in studies, including lack of justification for model assumptions and data inputs. This study aimed to update the last published systematic review of model-based economic evaluations of interventions for dementia, including Alzheimer's disease, with a focus on any methodological improvements and quality assessment of the studies. Systematic searches in eight databases, including PubMed, Cochrane, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, EconLit, international HTA database, and the Tufts Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry were undertaken from February 2018 until August 2022. The quality of the included studies was assessed using the Philips checklist and the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) 2022 checklist. The findings were summarized through narrative analysis. This review included 23 studies, comprising cost-utility analyses (87%), cost-benefit analyses (9%) and cost-effectiveness analyses (4%). The studies covered various interventions, including pharmacological (n=10, 43%), non-pharmacological (n=4, 17%), prevention (n=4, 17%), diagnostic (n=4, 17%) and integrated (n=1, 4%) [diagnostics-pharmacologic] strategies. Markov transition models were commonly employed (65%), followed by decision trees (13%) and discrete-event simulation (9%). Several interventions from all categories were reported as being costeffective. The quality of reporting was suboptimal for the Methods and Results sections in almost all studies, although the majority of studies adequately addressed the decision problem, scope, and model-type selection in their economic evaluations. Regarding the quality of methodology, only a minority of studies addressed competing theories or clearly explained the rationale for model structure. Furthermore, few studies systematically identified key parameters or assessed data quality, and uncertainty was mostly addressed partially. This review informs future research and resource allocation by providing insights into model-based economic evaluations for dementia interventions and highlighting areas for improvement.

A Review of the Cost-Effectiveness Evidence for FDA-Approved Cell and Gene Therapies.

Cell and gene therapy (CGT) innovations have provided several significant breakthroughs in recent years. However, CGTs often come with a high upfront cost, raising questions about patient access, affordability, and long-term value. This study reviewed cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) studies that have attempted to assess the long-term value of Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved CGTs. Two reviewers independently searched the Tufts Medical Center CEA Registry to identify all studies for FDA-approved CGTs, per January 2023. A data extraction template was used to summarize the evidence in terms of the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio expressed as the cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) and essential modeling assumptions, combined with a template to extract the adherence to the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) checklist. The review identified 26 CEA studies for seven CGTs. Around half of the base-case cost-effectiveness results indicated that the cost per QALY was below $100,000-$150,000, often used as a threshold for reasonable cost-effectiveness in the United States. However, the results varied substantially across studies for the same treatment, ranging from being considered very cost-effective to far from cost-effective. Most models were based on data from single-arm trials with relatively short follow-ups, and different long-term extrapolations between studies caused large differences in the modeled cost-effectiveness results. In sum, this review showed that, despite the high upfront costs, many CGTs have cost-effectiveness evidence that can support long-term value. Nonetheless, substantial uncertainty regarding long-term value exists because so much of the modeling results are driven by uncertain extrapolations beyond the clinical trial data.

The cost-effectiveness of syphilis screening in pregnant women: a systematic literature review.

The cost-effectiveness study of syphilis screening in pregnant women has not been synthesized. This study aimed to synthesize the economic evidence on the cost-effectiveness of syphilis screening in pregnant women that might contribute to making recommendations on the future direction of syphilis screening approaches. We systematically searched MEDLINE, PubMed, and Web of Science databases for relevant studies published before 19 January 2023 and identified the cost-effectiveness analyses for syphilis screening in pregnant women. The methodological design quality was appraised by the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) 2022 checklist. In total, 17 literature met the eligibility criteria for a full review. Of the 17 studies, four evaluated interventions using different screening methods, seven assessed a combination of syphilis testing and treatment interventions, three focused on repeat screening intervention, and four evaluated the interventions that integrated syphilis and HIV testing. The most cost-effective strategy appeared to be rapid syphilis testing with high treatment rates in pregnant women who were positive. The cost-effectiveness of syphilis screening for pregnancy has been widely demonstrated. It is very essential to improve the compliance with maternal screening and the treatment rates for positive pregnant women while implementing screening.

Evaluation of the Cost-Effectiveness of Evidence-Based Interventions to Increase Female Breast and Cervical Cancer Screens: A Systematic Review.

To systematically review published cost-effectiveness analyses of Evidence-Based Interventions (EBIs) recommended by the United States Community Preventive Services Task Force (CPSTF) to increase breast and cervical cancer screening. We searched PubMed and Embase for prospective cost-effectiveness evaluations of EBIs for breast and cervical cancer screening since 1999. We reviewed studies according to the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) and compared the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICERs), defined as cost per additional woman screened, adjusted to 2021 USD, within and across EBIs by cancer type. We identified eleven studies meeting our review criteria: nine were breast cancer-focused, one breast and cervical cancer combined, and one cervical only, which together reported twenty-four cost-effectiveness assessments of outreach programs spanning eight EBIs. One-on-one education programs were the most common EBI evaluated. The average ICER across breast cancer studies was USD 545 (standard deviation [SD] = USD 729.3), while that for cervical cancer studies was USD 197 (SD = 186.6. Provider reminder/recall systems for women already linked to formal care were the most cost-effective, with an average ICERs of USD 41.3 and USD 10.6 for breast and cervical cancer, respectively. Variability in ICERs across and within EBIs reflect the population studied, the specific EBI, and study settings, and was relatively high. ICER estimate uncertainty and the potential for program replicability in other settings and with other populations were not addressed. Given these limitations, using existing cost-effectiveness estimates to inform program funding allocations is not warranted at this time. Additional research is needed on outreach programs for cervical cancer and those which serve minority populations for either of the female cancer screens.

Economic Cost of Rehabilitation with Robotic and Virtual Reality Systems in People with Neurological Disorders: A Systematic Review.

Background: The prevalence of neurological disorders is increasing worldwide. In recent decades, the conventional rehabilitation for people with neurological disorders has been often reinforced with the use of technological devices (robots and virtual reality). The aim of this systematic review was to identify the evidence on the economic cost of rehabilitation with robotic and virtual reality devices for people with neurological disorders through a review of the scientific publications over the last 15 years. Methods: A systematic review was conducted on partial economic evaluations (cost description, cost analysis, description of costs and results) and complete (cost minimization, cost-effectiveness, cost utility and cost benefit) studies. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed. The main data sources used were PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science (WOS). Studies published in English over the last 15 years were considered for inclusion in this review, regardless of the type of neurological disorder. The critical appraisal instrument from the Joanna Briggs Institute for economic evaluation and the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) were used to analyse the methodological quality of all the included papers. Results: A total of 15 studies were included in this review. Ten papers were focused on robotics and five on virtual reality. Most of the studies were focused on people who experienced a stroke. The robotic device most frequently used in the papers included was InMotion® (Bionik Co., Watertown, MA, USA), and for those focused on virtual reality, all papers included used semi-immersive virtual reality systems, with commercial video game consoles (Nintendo Wii® (Nintendo Co., Ltd., Kyoto, Japan) and Kinect® (Microsoft Inc., Redmond, WA, USA)) being used the most. The included studies mainly presented cost minimization outcomes and a general description of costs per intervention, and there were disparities in terms of population, setting, device, protocol and the economic cost outcomes evaluated. Overall, the methodological quality of the included studies was of a moderate level. Conclusions: There is controversy about using robotics in people with neurological disorders in a rehabilitation context in terms of cost minimization, cost-effectiveness, cost utility and cost benefits. Semi-immersive virtual reality devices could involve savings (mainly derived from the low prices of the systems analysed and transportation services if they are applied through telerehabilitation programmes) compared to in-clinic interventions.

Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards 2022 (CHEERS II) statement: a validated Dutch translation

ABSTRACT Objectives This study primarily aimed to develop a validated Dutch translation of the 28 items of the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) II. A secondary aim was to provide a worked example of a scientifically valid translation process. Methods A four-step process was applied: (1) forward translation, (2) backward translation, (3) quantitative validation (two back-translated English versions vs. original English version), and (4) qualitative validation (one Dutch version vs. original English version), resulting in the final Dutch CHEERS II checklist. Results During quantitative validation, the average scores indicated high language comparability (1.88 (SD 0.70); 1.70 (SD 0.73)) and interpretation similarity (1.77 (SD 0.81); 1.54 (SD 0.74)). Four items required formal revision. In the qualitative validation step, feedback primarily focused on specific terms ‘outcomes,’ ‘benefits and harms,’ ‘(year of) conversion,’ ‘any,’ and ‘characterizing.’ Conclusion Despite English being the common language of science, translating research instruments remains relevant to enhance clarity, accessibility, and inclusivity. The Dutch translation can be used by students, regulators, researchers, or others to report and evaluate reporting of economic evaluations. Our detailed description of the applied methodology can facilitate future translations of research instruments.

Cost Effectiveness of Bariatric Surgical Treatment Methods: A Systematic Review

Obesity has become an epidemic today and has become one of the important public health problems. Pharmacological treatment, exercise, cognitive behavioural therapy, medical nutrition and bariatric surgery are used in the treatment of obesity. The aim of this study was to systematically identify and evaluate the national and international literature on the cost-effectiveness of bariatric surgery methods. In this context, a systematic search of electronic databases was conducted. Screening, data extraction, and critical assessment of methodological quality were evaluated according to the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS). Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) and cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) were interpreted using the outcome measure. A total of 448 articles were accessed and the full text of 164 articles was analysed. Within the framework of inclusion and exclusion criteria, 20 articles were included in the study. According to the studies in the literature, bariatric surgery is a low-cost or cost-saving treatment option in the long term. There is limited evidence about the long-term clinical effects and safety of bariatric surgery. Therefore, further studies in this context will significantly contribute to the results of cost-effectiveness studies.

Economic Evaluations and Equity in the Use of Artificial Intelligence in Imaging Exams for Medical Diagnosis in People With Skin, Neurological, and Pulmonary Diseases: Protocol for a Systematic Review.

Traditional health care systems face long-standing challenges, including patient diversity, geographical disparities, and financial constraints. The emergence of artificial intelligence (AI) in health care offers solutions to these challenges. AI, a multidisciplinary field, enhances clinical decision-making. However, imbalanced AI models may enhance health disparities. This systematic review aims to investigate the economic performance and equity impact of AI in diagnostic imaging for skin, neurological, and pulmonary diseases. The research question is "To what extent does the use of AI in imaging exams for diagnosing skin, neurological, and pulmonary diseases result in improved economic outcomes, and does it promote equity in health care systems?" The study is a systematic review of economic and equity evaluations following PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) and CHEERS (Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards) guidelines. Eligibility criteria include articles reporting on economic evaluations or equity considerations related to AI-based diagnostic imaging for specified diseases. Data will be collected from PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, and reference lists. Data quality and transferability will be assessed according to CHEC (Consensus on Health Economic Criteria), EPHPP (Effective Public Health Practice Project), and Welte checklists. This systematic review began in March 2023. The literature search identified 9,526 publications and, after full-text screening, 9 publications were included in the study. We plan to submit a manuscript to a peer-reviewed journal once it is finalized, with an expected completion date in January 2024. AI in diagnostic imaging offers potential benefits but also raises concerns about equity and economic impact. Bias in algorithms and disparities in access may hinder equitable outcomes. Evaluating the economic viability of AI applications is essential for resource allocation and affordability. Policy makers and health care stakeholders can benefit from this review's insights to make informed decisions. Limitations, including study variability and publication bias, will be considered in the analysis. This systematic review will provide valuable insights into the economic and equity implications of AI in diagnostic imaging. It aims to inform evidence-based decision-making and contribute to more efficient and equitable health care systems. DERR1-10.2196/48544.

Economic Evaluation of Neoadjuvant Treatment Strategies for HER2 Positive Breast Cancer: A Systematic Review

Context: There are several neoadjuvant treatment strategies for HER2-positive breast cancer (BC). Studies have investigated different aspects of these strategies and presented different findings. Objectives: This study aimed at collecting and interpreting economic evaluation studies related to neoadjuvant treatment strategies for HER2-positive BC. Methods: In this systematic review, PubMed, Web of Science (WOS), ScienceDirect, and Scopus databases were searched without a time limit between May and October 2023. Google Scholar search engine was also used to complete the search process. Two authors independently determined the eligibility of the study. To assess the quality of the studies, the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) guidelines were used. Disagreements were resolved by discussion or consultation with a third researcher. As this review is descriptive, numerical data were not extracted for statistical analysis. Results: Out of 234 studies found in the first stage, 21 studies from 14 countries were included. The strategies that have been approved by studies include THP (taxol, trastuzumab, pertuzumab), PTD (Pertuzumab in combination with trastuzumab and docetaxel), TH (docetaxel and trastuzumab), T-DM1 (trastuzumab emtansine), and HP (trastuzumab plus pertuzumab). Conclusions: The findings of this systematic review show that the reported strategies in the treatment of HER2-positive BC patients are cost-effective in different settings. While the findings of this review provide largely positive results, the characteristics of each strategy should be considered.

Evaluating the economic screening of cervical cancer using IVA, HPV DNA, and histology methods: Systematic review

Background: Cervical cancer is a common malignancy causing cancer-related deaths worldwide. Evidence suggests that adequate screening can reduce cervical cancer-related deaths. Screening for cervical cancer can be done using Visual Inspection of Acetic Acid (VIA), HPV DNA and cytology. The economic burden of cancer patients is substantial ranging from US$8,066 to 22,888 per patient. Health cost effectiveness was comparative in the analysis of costs and consequences for the three screening methods. VIA is the most cost-effective primary screening test for cervical cancer. Purpose: To review the research results of a full economic evaluation to encourage the specific cervical cancer screening methods used to enhance the detection of precancerous lesions in women's cervix. Method: This systematic review used the PRISMA ScR framework with a literature search using 3 databases, namely Pubmed, Wiley, and Google Scholar, with years of publication from 2009 – 2023. The data that has been obtained is carried out by critical appraisal using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS). Results: Based on the search for 3,973 selected articles, 7 match the inclusion criteria. This systematic review discovered three major themes: the utility value of health status, cost and analysis. Conclusion: The most cost-effective cervical cancer screening is by VIA. HPV DNA and pap smear based cytology techniques have been reported to show high sensitivity and specificity respectively including being expensive and resource intensive. In contrast the VIA technique has moderate sensitivity and specificity but is less expensive Various developed countries have used Pap or HPV DNA cytology tests as the main screening method, which can lead to a 50-70% reduction in cervical cancer incidence, while in developing countries using VIA tests as a cervical cancer screening method.

Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS): French Translation

The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) provide guidance for health technology assessment bodies to use when reporting economic evaluations. The most recent edition, CHEERS 2022, is a 28-item reporting checklist that was developed in consultation with a broad range of stakeholders. CHEERS 2022 has been translated into French so it can be used more widely and improve consistency in economic evaluations among the international health technology assessment community.

French Translation of the 2022 Version of the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) Statement

The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) provide guidance for health technology assessment bodies to use when reporting economic evaluations. The most recent edition, CHEERS 2022, is a 28-item reporting checklist that was developed in consultation with a broad range of stakeholders. CHEERS 2022 has been translated into French so it can be used more widely and improve consistency in economic evaluations among the international health technology assessment community.