Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards Research Articles

Diagnostic Testing for Sepsis: A Systematic Review of Economic Evaluations

Introduction: Sepsis is a serious and expensive healthcare problem, when caused by a multidrug-resistant (MDR) bacteria mortality and costs increase. A reduction in the time until the start of treatment improves clinical results. The objective is to perform a systematic review of economic evaluations to analyze the cost-effectiveness of diagnostic methods in sepsis and to draw lessons on the methods used to incorporate antimicrobial resistance (AMR) in these studies. Material and Methods: the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed, and the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting standards (CHEERS) checklist was used to extract the information from the texts. Results: A total of 16 articles were found. A decision model was performed in 14. We found two ways to handle resistance while modelling: the test could identify infections caused by a resistant pathogen or resistance-related inputs, or outcomes were included (the incidence of AMR in sepsis patients, antibiotic use, and infection caused by resistant bacterial pathogens). Conclusion: Using a diagnostic technique to detect sepsis early on is more cost-effective than standard care. Setting a direct relationship between the implementation of a testing strategy and the reduction of AMR cases, we made several assumptions about the efficacy of antibiotics and the length-of-stay of patients.

Bureaucracy has created a mess for Novavax volunteers like me

Health economic evaluations are comparative analyses of alternative courses of action in terms of their costs and consequences. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement, published in 2013,...

Central COVID-19 Coordination Centers in Germany: Description, Economic Evaluation, and Systematic Review.

BackgroundDuring the COVID-19 pandemic, Central COVID-19 Coordination Centers (CCCCs) have been established at several hospitals across Germany with the intention to assist local health care professionals in efficiently referring patients with suspected or confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection to regional hospitals and therefore to prevent the collapse of local health system structures. In addition, these centers coordinate interhospital transfers of patients with COVID-19 and provide or arrange specialized telemedical consultations.ObjectiveThis study describes the establishment and management of a CCCC at a German university hospital.MethodsWe performed economic analyses (cost, cost-effectiveness, use, and utility) according to the CHEERS (Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards) criteria. Additionally, we conducted a systematic review to identify publications on similar institutions worldwide. The 2 months with the highest local incidence of COVID-19 cases (December 2020 and January 2021) were considered.ResultsDuring this time, 17.3 requests per day were made to the CCCC regarding admission or transfer of patients with COVID-19. The majority of requests were made by emergency medical services (601/1068, 56.3%), patients with an average age of 71.8 (SD 17.2) years were involved, and for 737 of 1068 cases (69%), SARS-CoV-2 had already been detected by a positive polymerase chain reaction test. In 59.8% (639/1068) of the concerned patients, further treatment by a general practitioner or outpatient presentation in a hospital could be initiated after appropriate advice, 27.2% (291/1068) of patients were admitted to normal wards, and 12.9% (138/1068) were directly transmitted to an intensive care unit. The operating costs of the CCCC amounted to more than €52,000 (US $60,031) per month. Of the 334 patients with detected SARS-CoV-2 who were referred via EMS or outpatient physicians, 302 (90.4%) were triaged and announced in advance by the CCCC. No other published economic analysis of COVID-19 coordination or management institutions at hospitals could be found.ConclusionsDespite the high cost of the CCCC, we were able to show that it is a beneficial concept to both the providing hospital and the public health system. However, the most important benefits of the CCCC are that it prevents hospitals from being overrun by patients and that it avoids situations in which physicians must weigh one patient’s life against another’s.

Economic Evaluation of Long-Term Survivorship Care for Cancer Patients in OECD Countries: A Systematic Review for Decision-Makers.

Long-term cancer survivorship care is a crucial component of an efficient healthcare system. For numerous reasons, there has been an increase in the number of cancer survivors; therefore, healthcare decision-makers are tasked with balancing a finite budget with a strong demand for services. Decision-makers require clear and pragmatic interpretation of results to inform resource allocation decisions. For these reasons, the impact and importance of economic evidence are increasing. The aim of the current study was to conduct a systematic review of economic evaluations of long-term cancer survivorship care in Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) member countries and to assess the usefulness of economic evidence for decision-makers. A systematic review of electronic databases, including MEDLINE, PubMed, PsycINFO and others, was conducted. The reporting quality of the included studies was appraised using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) checklist. Each included study’s usefulness for decision-makers was assessed using an adapted version of a previously published approach. Overall, 3597 studies were screened, and of the 235 studies assessed for eligibility, 34 satisfied the pre-determined inclusion criteria. We found that the majority of the included studies had limited value for informing healthcare decision-making and conclude that this represents an ongoing issue in the field. We recommend that authors explicitly include a policy statement as part of their presentation of results.

Health-Economic Analyses of Diagnostics: Guidance on Design and Reporting.

Cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) can be used to assess the value of diagnostics in clinical practice. Due to the introduction of the European in vitro diagnostic and medical devices regulations, more clinical data on new diagnostics may become available, which may improve the interest and feasibility of performing CEAs. We present eight recommendations on the reporting and design of CEAs of diagnostics. The symptoms patients experience, the clinical setting, locations of test sampling and analysis, and diagnostic algorithms should be clearly reported. The used time horizon should reflect the time horizon used to model the treatment after the diagnostic pathway. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) or disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) should be used as the clinical outcomes but may be combined with other relevant outcomes, such as real options value. If the number of tests using the same equipment can vary, the economy of scale should be considered. An understandable graphical representation of the various diagnostic algorithms should be provided to understand the results, such as an efficiency frontier. Finally, the budget impact and affordability should be considered. These recommendations can be used in addition to other, more general, recommendations, such as the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) or the reference case for economic evaluation by the international decision support initiative.

Pharmacogenetic testing for adverse drug reaction prevention: systematic review of economic evaluations and the appraisal of quality matters for clinical practice and implementation

BackgroundGenetic testing has potential roles in identifying whether an individual would have risk of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) from a particular medicine. Robust cost-effectiveness results on genetic testing would be useful for clinical practice and policy decision-making on allocating resources effectively. This study aimed to update a systematic review on economic evaluations of pharmacogenetic testing to prevent ADRs and critically appraise the quality of reporting and sources of evidence for model input parameters.MethodsWe searched studies through Medline via PubMed, Scopus and CRD’s NHS Economic Evaluation up to October 2019. Studies investigating polymorphism-based pharmacogenetic testing, which guided drug therapies to prevent ADRs, using economic evaluation methods were included. Two reviewers independently performed data extraction and assessed the quality of reporting using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) guidelines and the quality of data sources using the hierarchy of evidence developed by Cooper et al.ResultsFifty-nine economic evaluations of pharmacogenetic testing to avoid drug-induced ADRs were found between 2002 and 2018. Cost-utility and cost-effectiveness analyses were the most common methods of economic evaluation of pharmacogenetic testing. Most studies complied with the CHEERS checklist, except for single study-based economic evaluations which did not report uncertainty analysis (78%). There was a lack of high-quality evidence not only for estimating the clinical effectiveness of pharmacogenetic testing, but also baseline clinical data. About 14% of the studies obtained clinical effectiveness data of testing from a meta-analysis of case-control studies with direct comparison, which was not listed in the hierarchy of evidence used.ConclusionsOur review suggested that future single study-based economic evaluations of pharmacogenetic testing should report uncertainty analysis, as this could significantly affect the robustness of economic evaluation results. A specific ranking system for the quality of evidence is needed for the economic evaluation of pharmacogenetic testing of ADRs. Differences in parameters, methods and outcomes across studies, as well as population-level and system-level differences, may lead to the difficulty of comparing cost-effectiveness results across countries.

Examining the cost-effectiveness of personal protective equipment for formal healthcare workers in Kenya during the COVID-19 pandemic

BackgroundHealthcare workers are at a higher risk of COVID-19 infection during care encounters compared to the general population. Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) have been shown to protect COVID-19 among healthcare workers, however, Kenya has faced PPE shortages that can adequately protect all healthcare workers. We, therefore, examined the health and economic consequences of investing in PPE for healthcare workers in Kenya.MethodsWe conducted a cost-effectiveness and return on investment (ROI) analysis using a decision-analytic model following the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) guidelines. We examined two outcomes: 1) the incremental cost per healthcare worker death averted, and 2) the incremental cost per healthcare worker COVID-19 case averted. We performed a multivariate sensitivity analysis using 10,000 Monte Carlo simulations.ResultsKenya would need to invest $3.12 million (95% CI: 2.65–3.59) to adequately protect healthcare workers against COVID-19. This investment would avert 416 (IQR: 330–517) and 30,041 (IQR: 7243 – 102,480) healthcare worker deaths and COVID-19 cases respectively. Additionally, such an investment would result in a healthcare system ROI of $170.64 million (IQR: 138–209) – equivalent to an 11.04 times return.ConclusionDespite other nationwide COVID-19 prevention measures such as social distancing, over 70% of healthcare workers will still be infected if the availability of PPE remains scarce. As part of the COVID-19 response strategy, the government should consider adequate investment in PPE for all healthcare workers in the country as it provides a large return on investment and it is value for money.

Economic burden of road traffic injuries in sub-Saharan Africa: a systematic review of existing literature

ObjectiveThis systematic review aims to explore and synthesise existing literature on the direct and indirect costs from road traffic injuries (RTIs) in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA), the quality of existing evidence,...

How are economic evaluations carried out for primary caries prevention strategies?

Aims To summarise evidence on economic evaluations (EEs) of primary caries prevention in preschool children aged 2-5 years and to evaluate the reporting quality of full EE studies using a quality assessment tool.Methods Systematic literature search from several databases. The reporting quality was assessed using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) checklist.Results In total, 808 studies were identified and 39 were included in review. Complex multi-component interventions were the most common followed by water fluoridation. Cost analysis and cost-effectiveness were the most common EEs. Parameters that were not reported well were: characterising uncertainty, study perspective, sensitivity analysis and discount rate.Conclusions The number of EEs has increased but there is inconsistency in how EEs are conducted and reported.

Improving cost-effectiveness of endoscopic surveillance for Barrett's esophagus by reducing low-value care: a review of economic evaluations.

Individuals with Barrett's esophagus are believed to be at 30-120× risk of developing esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC). Early detection and endoscopic treatment of dysplasia/early cancer confers a significant advantage to patients under surveillance; however, most do not progress past the non-dysplastic state of Barrett's esophagus (NDBE), which is potentially an inefficient distribution of health care resources. This article aimed to review the outcomes of cost-effectiveness studies reducing low-value care in the context of endoscopic surveillance for non-dysplastic Barrett's esophagus (NDBE). A systematic search was conducted by two reviewers in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. cost-utility analyses of endoscopic surveillance of NDBE patients with at least one treatment strategy focused on reduction of surveillance. A narrative synthesis of economic evaluations was undertaken, along with an in-depth analysis of input parameters contributing to stated Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER). Study appraisal was performed using the consolidated health economic evaluation reporting standards (CHEERS) tool. 10 Studies met inclusion criteria. There was significant variation in cost-model structures, input parameters, ICER values, and willingness-to-pay thresholds between studies. All studies except one concluded guideline-specified endoscopic surveillance for NDBE patients was not cost-effective. Studies that explored a modified surveillance by deselection of low-risk NDBE patients found it to be a cost-effective strategy. Guideline specified endoscopic surveillance for NDBE was not found to be cost-effective in the studies examined. A modified endoscopic surveillance strategy removing individuals with the lowest risk for progression from NDBE to adenocarcinoma is likely to be cost-effective but is dependent on risk profile of patients excluded from surveillance.

Economic evaluation of HIV testing options for low-prevalence high-income countries: a systematic review

IntroductionThis study reviewed the economic evidence of rapid HIV testing versus conventional HIV testing in low-prevalence high-income countries; evaluated the methodological quality of existing economic evaluations of HIV testing studies; and made recommendations on future economic evaluation directions of HIV testing approaches.MethodsA systematic search of selected databases for relevant English language studies published between Jan 1, 2001, and Jan 30, 2019, was conducted. The methodological design quality was assessed using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) and the Drummond tool. We reported the systematic review according to the PRISMA guidelines.ResultsFive economic evaluations met the eligibility criteria but varied in comparators, evaluation type, perspective, and design. The methodologic quality of the included studies ranged from medium to high. We found evidence to support the cost-effectiveness of rapid HIV testing approaches in low-prevalence high-income countries. Rapid HIV testing was associated with cost per adjusted life year (QALY), ranging from $42,768 to $90,498. Additionally, regardless of HIV prevalence, rapid HIV testing approaches were the most cost-effective option.ConclusionsThere is evidence for the cost-effectiveness of rapid HIV testing, including the use of saliva-based testing compared to usual care or hospital-based serum testing. Further studies are needed to draw evidence on the relative cost-effectiveness of the distinct options and contexts of rapid HIV testing.

Post-retained Restorations: A Cost-minimization Analysis Nested in a Randomized Clinical Trial.

The aim of this study was to assess four post-retained restorative strategies for endodontically treated teeth using cost-minimization analysis. The cost-minimization analysis was based on primary data from a randomized clinical trial and followed the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) guidelines. Two hundred twenty-five teeth (141 patients) restored using four strategies-teeth with ferrules+ restored with either glass fiber posts or direct composite or crowns, and teeth without ferrules- restored with either glass fiber or cast metal posts with crowns-were evaluated annually between 2009 and 2018. Initial costs and incremental costs per year were calculated. Survival curves were created using the Kaplan-Meier method and log-rank test. Kruskal-Wallis analysis was followed by Dunn's test, which was used to compare restorative treatments, with a significance level of 5%. Initial costs were greater for cast metal posts without crowns (US$153.14). Glass fiber posts with composite (US$27.11) were least costly; the most failures occurred in this group, but they were primarily repairable restoration fractures. The number of extractions, and thus cost, was greater for glass fiber posts with crowns. The mean annual cost was significantly lower for teeth restored with composite (p<0.001). Ferrule presence did not significantly impact annual costs. The use of glass fiber posts and direct composite incurred significantly lower annual costs than did other alternatives involving crowns or metal posts.

Evaluating the Quality of Cost-Effectiveness Literature in Breast Surgery: What Do We Do Well and How Can We Do Better? A Systematic Review

Surgical options for breast cancer are numerous and span multiple surgical disciplines. Decision analyses aid surgeons in making the most cost-effective choice, thus reducing health care expenditure while maximizing patient outcome. In this study, we aimed to evaluate existing breast surgery cost-effectiveness literature against the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) validated scoring system. A PRISMA search was performed for cost-effectiveness within breast surgery. Articles were scored with CHEERS criteria on a 0-24 scale and qualitative data were collected. Subgroup analysis was performed comparing pre-CHEERS (published in 2013 or earlier) and post-CHEERS (published in 2014 or later) cohorts. Chi-squared analysis was performed to compare where studies lost points between cohorts. Of 2279 articles screened, 46 articles were included. The average CHEERS score was 18.18. Points were most often lost for characterizing heterogeneity, followed by discount rate, incremental costs and outcomes, and abstract. Quality-adjusted life year was the most commonly used health outcome, with visual model or analog scales as the most commonly used measure of effectiveness obtained primarily from surgeons or physicians. Most articles characterized uncertainty by deterministic sensitivity analysis, followed by both deterministic and probabilistic, then probabilistic. Average CHEERS scores were similar between pre- and post-CHEERS cohorts (17.67 vs. 18.40, P > .05) There were several significant differences in where articles lost points between pre- and post-CHEERS cohorts. In order to standardize the reporting of results, cost-effectiveness studies in breast surgery should adhere to the current CHEERS criteria and aim to better characterize heterogeneity in their analyses.

Economic evaluation of fluoride varnish application in Iranian schools

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Dental caries is still one of the most common chronic diseases among children, although it can be prevented through early and regular professional services. This study aimed to analyze cost-effectiveness of fluoride varnish therapy intervention to develop and implement appropriate strategies in order to reduce incidence of tooth decay. METHODS: This study modelled the cost-effectiveness of fluoride varnish therapy plan to prevent dental caries in elementary students with age range between 7-12 years, in Urmia, northwestern Iran. All costs and benefits were measured from a provider perspective in order to obtain the cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA). We estimated the direct medical costs of fluoride varnish in a school-based setting and compared this to the benefits of reducing the incidence of dental caries, as measured by the disability-adjusted life year (DALY) index. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) checklist was used to report this economic evaluation. RESULTS: Based on the DALY index, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was obtained $200.02 per DALY averted. According to the threshold defined by World Health Organization (WHO), fluoride varnish therapy intervention in this study is cost-effective. The results of this research were not sensitive to the desired parameters based on the results of one-way sensitivity analysis. CONCLUSION: This study recommends fluoride varnish therapy intervention because of reducing caries, improving quality of life (QOL), and financial saving for families in the long term. The results of this study can also help health policy makers and managers to make decisions about allocating resources to prevent dental diseases.

Impacts on health outcomes and on resources utilization for anticancer drugs injection at home, a complex intervention: a systematic review.

As hospital-based home care is a complex intervention, we critically appraised the key elements that could ensure the completeness of assessment and explain the heterogeneity of the literature results about the comparison between home and hospital setting for the anticancer drugs injection within the same standards of clinical care. Systematic review was conducted. Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Sciences, and Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health (Cinahl) searched to February 1, 2019, and combined with grey literature. Methodological quality has been rated using the "Quality Assessment Tool for Quantitative Studies" developed by the Effective Public Health Practice Project (EPHHP) in addition to the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement for economic studies and the consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ) checklist for qualitative studies. Of 400 records identified, we identified 13 relevant studies (nine quantitative and four mixed-method studies). The quality of studies was hardly strong. The home-based anticancer injection involved highly heterogeneous home care interventions that generally kept a strong link with the hospital setting. The study schemes limited the comparison of clinical outcomes (OS, PFS, toxicity). Unlike the quality of life remaining similar, patients preferred to be treated at home. Cost savings were in favor of Hospital at Home, but the charge categories used to compare or the home intervention were heterogeneous and rarely integrating relatives' duties and hospital staff's time. Qualitative studies highlighted about benefits and barriers of home. The current state of evidence shows as it still remains difficult to appraise the anticancer injection at home when considering the details of this complex intervention, the role of each stakeholder, and the missing data.

Replication of Published Health Economic Obesity Models: Assessment of Facilitators, Hurdles and Reproduction Success.

ObjectivesThis research aims to (1) replicate published health economic models, (2) compare reproduced results with original results, (3) identify facilitators and hurdles to model replicability and determine reproduction success, and (4) suggest model replication reporting standards to enhance model reproducibility, in the context of health economic obesity models.MethodsFour health economic obesity models simulating an adult UK population were identified, selected for replication, and evaluated using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) checklist. Reproduction results were compared to original results, focusing on cost-effectiveness outcomes, and the resulting reproduction success was assessed by published criteria. Replication facilitators and hurdles were identified and transferred into related reporting standards.ResultsAll four case studies were state-transition models simulating costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Comparing original versus reproduction outcomes, the following deviation ranges were observed: costs − 3.9 to 16.1% (mean over all model simulations 3.78%), QALYs − 3.7 to 2.1% (mean − 0.11%), and average cost-utility ratios − 3.0 to 17.9% (mean 4.28%). Applying different published criteria, an overall reproduction success was observed for three of four models. Key replication facilitators were input data tables and model diagrams, while missing standard deviations and missing formulas for equations were considered as key hurdles.ConclusionsThis study confirms the feasibility of rebuilding health economic obesity models, but minor to major assumptions were needed to fill reporting gaps. Model replications can help to assess the quality of health economic model documentation and can be used to validate current model reporting practices. Simple changes to actual CHEERS reporting criteria may solve identified replication hurdles.Supplementary InformationThe online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40273-021-01008-7.

An overview of the characteristics and quality assessment criteria in systematic review of pharmacoeconomics.

The systematic review of economic evaluations plays a critical role in making well-informed decisions about competing healthcare interventions. The quality of these systematic reviews varies due to the lack of internationally recognized methodological evaluation standards. Nine English and Chinese databases including the Cochrane Library, PubMed, EMbase (Ovid), NHS economic evaluation database (NHSEED) (Ovid), Health Technology Assessment (HTA) database, Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), WangFang, VIP Chinese Science & Technology Periodicals (VIP) and Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (CBM) were searched. Two reviewers independently screened studies and extracted data. The methodological quality of the literature was measured with modified AMSTAR. Data were narrative synthesized. 165 systematic reviews were included. The overall methodological quality of the literature was moderate according to the AMSTAR scale. In these articles, thirteen quality assessment tools and 32 author self-defined criteria were used. The three most widely used tools were the Drummond checklist (19.4%), the BMJ checklist (15.8%), the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement (12.7%). Others included the Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES), the Consensus on Health Economic Criteria (CHEC), the checklist of Center for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD), the Philips checklist, the World Health Organization (WHO) checklist, the checklist of Critical Appraisal Skills Program (CASP), the Pediatric Quality Appraisal Questionnaire (PQAQ), the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) checklist, Spanish and Chinese guidelines. The quantitative scales used in these literature were the QHES and PQAQ. Evidence showed that pharmacoeconomic systematic reviews' methodology remained to be improved, and the quality assessment criteria were gradually unified. Multiple scales can be used in combination to evaluate the quality of economic research in different settings and types.

Efficiency of Diagnostic Testing for Helicobacter pylori Infections-A Systematic Review.

Background: The most recommended treatment for a Helicobacter pylori infection is high doses of combined antibiotics. The objective of this article is to perform a systematic review of the economic evaluation studies applied to assess the efficiency of diagnostic testing for H. pylori infections, so that their main characteristics can be identified and to learn from the literature how the antimicrobial resistance (AMR) issue is incorporated into these economic evaluations. Methods: We conducted a systematic review to compare the costs and clinical effectiveness of diagnostic strategies for H. pylori infections. We followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and extracted the items from the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) checklist. Results: We found thirteen articles that were of good quality according to CHEERS: six studies focused on diagnostics of Helicobacter pylori infections associated with dyspepsia and four on duodenal ulcers. Testing was found to be the most cost-effective strategy in eight articles. Four studies considered AMR. Conclusions: Testing was more cost-effective than empirical treatment, except in cases of high prevalence (as with developing countries) or when patients could be stratified according to their comorbidities. The introduction of AMR into the model may change the efficiency of the testing strategy.

Economic evaluations of psychological treatments for common mental disorders in low- and middle-income countries: protocol for a systematic review

ABSTRACT Background Common mental disorders (CMDs) are highly prevalent conditions that constitute a major public health and economic burden on society in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Despite the increased demand for economic evidence to support resource allocation for scaled-up implementation of mental health services in these contexts, economic evaluations of psychological treatments for CMDs remain scarce. Objective The proposed systematic review aims to synthesize findings on methods and outcomes of economic evaluations of psychological treatments for CMDs in LMICs and appraise quality. Methods We will identify, select, and extract data from published economic evaluations of psychological interventions for CMDs conducted in LMICs. We will search bibliographic databases (PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, Web of Science, EconLit, PsycINFO, Africa-Wide Information, Cochrane library, Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD), Cost Effectiveness Analysis (CEA) Registry), and the African Journals Online (AJOL) and Google Scholar platforms. Only full economic evaluations (Cost-Effectiveness Analysis (CEA), Cost-Utility Analysis (CUA), Cost-Consequence Analysis (CCA), or Cost-Benefit Analysis (CBA)) of psychological treatments for CMDs (defined as depressive, anxiety, and substance use disorders) conducted in LMICs will be included. There will be no restrictions based on date of publication, perspective, follow-up duration or sample size. Data extraction will be guided by the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) checklist. Results The results presented will be examined using a narrative synthesis approach. The quality of included studies will be assessed using the Drummond & Jefferson checklist. Conclusion The fledgling evidence base in this area provides an opportunity to promote improved economic evaluation methods in line with repeated calls for economic evidence alongside effectiveness evidence in these settings. A rigorously developed economic evaluation evidence base will support resource allocation decisions for scaled up implementation of psychological interventions in LMIC settings. Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD42020185277.

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

We aimed to perform a systematic review of economic evaluations of drug-coated balloons (DCBs) and drug-eluting stents (DESs) in peripheral artery disease (PAD) and to assess the level of evidence of relevant studies. The purpose was not to present economic findings. A systematic review was performed using four electronic databases to identify health economic evaluation studies reporting on the use of DCBs and DESs in PAD. The methodological and reporting quality of the studies was assessed using three different tools, the Drummond, Cooper, and CHEERS (Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards) checklists. Six articles were included in this review of the 1,728 publications identified. Four studies were cost-effectiveness analyses and two cost-utility analyses. According to the Cooper hierarchy scale, the studies used good-quality data sources. The level of evidence used for clinical effect sizes, safety data, baseline clinical data, and costs was of high quality in general. In contrast, an evaluation of the reporting quality suggested that essential information was lacking. The present study demonstrates that clinical data used in economic evaluations of DCBs and DESs in PAD are from clinical studies of high quality in general. However, the quality of reporting represents a concern when interpreting the results provided by these economic studies.