Quality Of Health Economic Evaluations Research Articles

Quality of health economic evaluations in emergency medicine journals: a systematic review.

Health economic evaluations are used in decision-making regarding resource allocation and it is imperative that they are completed with rigor. The primary objectives were to describe the characteristics and assess the quality of economic evaluations published in emergency medicine journals. Two reviewers independently searched 19 emergency medicine-specific journals via Medline and Embase from inception until March 3, 2022. Quality assessment was completed using the Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES) tool, and the primary outcome was the QHES score out of 100. Additionally, we identified factors that may contribute to higher-quality publications. 7260 unique articles yielded 48 economic evaluations that met inclusion criteria. Most studies were cost-utility analyses and of high quality, with a median QHES score of 84 (interquartile range, IQR: 72, 90). Studies based on mathematical models and those primarily designed as an economic evaluation were associated with higher quality scores. The most commonly missed QHES items were: (i) providing and justifying the perspective of the analysis, (ii) providing justification for the primary outcome, and (iii) selecting an outcome that was long enough to allow for relevant events to occur. The majority of health economic evaluations in the emergency medicine literature are cost-utility analyses and are of high quality. Decision analytic models and studies primarily designed as economic analyses were positively correlated with higher quality. To improve study quality, future EM economic evaluations should justify the choice of the perspective of the analysis and the selection of the primary outcome.

A systematic review of scope and quality of health economic evaluations conducted in Ethiopia.

There has been an increased interest in health technology assessment and economic evaluations for health policy in Ethiopia over the last few years. In this systematic review, we examined the scope and quality of healthcare economic evaluation studies in Ethiopia. We searched seven electronic databases (PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINHAL, Econlit, York CRD databases and CEA Tufts) from inception to May 2021 to identify published full health economic evaluations of a health-related intervention or programme in Ethiopia. This was supplemented with forward and backward citation searches of included articles, manual search of key government websites, the Disease Control Priorities-Ethiopia project and WHO-CHOICE programme. The quality of reporting of economic evaluations was assessed using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) checklist. The extracted data were grouped into subcategories based on the subject of the economic evaluation, organized into tables and reported narratively. This review identified 34 full economic evaluations conducted between 2009 and 2021. Around 14 (41%) of studies focussed on health service delivery, 8 (24%) on pharmaceuticals, vaccines and devices, and 4 (12%) on public-health programmes. The interventions were mostly preventive in nature and focussed on communicable diseases (n = 19; 56%) and maternal and child health (n = 6; 18%). Cost-effectiveness ratios varied widely from cost-saving to more than US $37 313 per life saved depending on the setting, perspectives, types of interventions and disease conditions. While the overall quality of included studies was judged as moderate (meeting 69% of CHEERS checklist), only four out of 27 cost-effectiveness studies characterized heterogeneity. There is a need for building local technical capacity to enhance the design, conduct and reporting of health economic evaluations in Ethiopia.

Quality of health economic evaluations submitted to the Italian Medicines Agency: current state and future actions.

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the current state of health economic evaluations (HEEs) submitted by pharmaceutical companies to the Italian Medicines Agency (AIFA) as part of their pricing and reimbursement (P&R) dossiers, and to explore potential future actions in order to enhance their quality. All company dossiers submitted from October 2016 to December 2018 were reviewed to select those containing pharmacoeconomic studies. The general characteristics of HEEs were described and their quality assessed based on a checklist adapted from Philips et al. (Review of guidelines for good practice in decision-analytic modelling in health technology assessment. Health Technol Assess. 2004;8: 1-158). Of the 299 dossiers submitted to AIFA, 105 included one or more pharmacoeconomic studies, of which fifty-three were cost-effectiveness analyses. Overall, the compliance of the HEEs with the quality checklist was highly variable: some studies reached high methodological standards whereas others had serious flaws (mean 59.22 percent, range 19.35-90.32 percent). The main weaknesses were the unjustified exclusion of relevant alternatives, poor description and justification of model data and assumptions, and insufficient exploration of uncertainty and study validity. Non-homogeneity across studies was found in study perspectives, discount rates, methods for costing, estimating quality-adjusted life-years and conducting sensitivity analyses. Based on the results of this study, the recommended actions for increasing the quality of HEEs within reimbursement submissions in Italy are twofold: first, to set methodological standards for conducting and reporting HEEs; second, to strengthen the internal assessment process, also through the acquisition of companies' models and re-evaluation of results. These actions will hopefully provide greater contribution to the evidence-based P&R decision making.

Quality Assessment of Reporting of Economic Evaluation in Cardiac Sugery: Has it Improved?

Cardiac surgery has seen substantial scientific progress over recent decades. Health economic evaluations have become important tools for decision makers to prioritize scarce health resources. The present study aimed to identify and critically appraise the reporting quality of health economic evaluations conducted in the field of cardiac surgery. A literature search was performed to identify health economic evaluations in cardiac surgery. The consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement was used to assess the quality of reporting of studies. A total 4,705 articles published between 1981 and 2016 were identified; sixty-nine studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria. There was a trend toward a greater number of publications and reporting quality over time. Six (8.7 percent) studies were conducted between 1981 and 1990, nine (13 percent) between 1991 and 2000, twenty-four (34.8 percent) between 2001 and 2010, and thirty (43.5 percent) after 2011. The mean CHEERS score of all articles was 16.7/24; for those published between 1980 and 1990 the mean (SD) score was 10.2 (±1.4), for those published between 1991 and 2000 it was 11.2 (±2.4), between 2001 and 2010 it was 15.3 (±4.8), and after 2011 it was 19.9 (±2.9). The quality of reporting was still insufficient for several studies after 2000, especially concerning items "characterizing heterogeneity," "assumptions," and "choice of model." The present study suggests that, even if the quantity and the quality of health economics evaluation in cardiac surgery has increased, there remains a need for improvement in several reporting criteria to ensure greater transparency.

Quality of health economic evaluations for the ACC/AHA stable ischemic heart disease practice guideline: A systematic review

The American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) recently published a rigorous framework to guide integration of economic data into clinical guidelines. We assessed the quality of economic evaluations in a major ACC/AHA clinical guidance report. We systematically identified cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) of RCTs cited in the ACC/AHA 2012 Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Patients with Stable Ischemic Heart Disease. We extracted: (1) study identifiers; (2) parent RCT information; (3) economic analysis characteristics; and (4) study quality using the Quality of Health Economic Studies instrument (QHES). Quality scores were categorized as high (≥75 points) or low (<75 points). Of 1,266 citations in the guideline, 219 were RCTs associated with 77 CEAs. Mean quality score was 81 (out of 100) and improved over time, though 29.9% of studies were low-quality. Cost-per-QALY was the most commonly reported primary outcome (39.0%). Low-quality studies were less likely to report study perspective, use appropriate time horizons, or address statistical and clinical uncertainty. Funding was overwhelmingly private (83%). A detailed methodological assessment of high-quality studies revealed domains of additional methodological issues not identified by the QHES. Economic evaluations of RCTs in the 2012 ACC/AHA ischemic heart disease guideline largely had high QHES scores but methodological issues existed among "high-quality" studies. Because the ACC/AHA has generally been more systematic in its integration of scientific evidence compared to other professional societies, it is likely that most societies will need to proceed more cautiously in their integration of economic evidence.

Health economic evaluations based on routine data in Germany: a systematic review

BackgroundImproved data access and funding for health services research have promoted the application of routine data to measure costs and effects of interventions within the German health care system. Following the trend towards real world evidence, this review aims to evaluate the status and quality of health economic evaluations based on routine data in Germany.MethodsTo identify relevant economic evaluations, a systematic literature search in the databases PubMed and EMBASE was complemented by a manual search. The included studies had to be full economic evaluations using German routine data to measure either costs, effects, or both. Study characteristics were assessed with a structured template. Additionally, the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) were used to measure quality of reporting.ResultsIn total, 912 records were identified and 35 studies were included in the further analysis. The majority of these studies was published in the past 5 years (n = 27, 77.1%) and used insurance claims data as a source of routine data (n = 30, 85.7%). The most common method used for handling selection bias was propensity score matching. With regard to the reporting quality, 42.9% (n = 15) of the studies satisfied at least 80% of the criteria on the CHEERS checklist.ConclusionsThis review confirms that routine data has become an increasingly common data source for health economic evaluations in Germany. While most studies addressed the application of routine data, this analysis reveals deficits in considering methodological particularities and in reporting quality of economic evaluations based on routine data. Nevertheless, this review demonstrates the overall potential of routine data for economic evaluations.

Systematic Review of Health Economic Impact Evaluations of Risk Prediction Models: Stop Developing, Start Evaluating.

Although health economic evaluations (HEEs) are increasingly common for therapeutic interventions, they appear to be rare for the use of risk prediction models (PMs). To evaluate the current state of HEEs of PMs by performing a comprehensive systematic review. Four databases were searched for HEEs of PM-based strategies. Two reviewers independently selected eligible articles. A checklist was compiled to score items focusing on general characteristics of HEEs of PMs, model characteristics and quality of HEEs, evidence on PMs typically used in the HEEs, and the specific challenges in performing HEEs of PMs. After screening 791 abstracts, 171 full texts, and reference checking, 40 eligible HEEs evaluating 60 PMs were identified. In these HEEs, PM strategies were compared with current practice (n = 32; 80%), to other stratification methods for patient management (n = 19; 48%), to an extended PM (n = 9; 23%), or to alternative PMs (n = 5; 13%). The PMs guided decisions on treatment (n = 42; 70%), further testing (n = 18; 30%), or treatment prioritization (n = 4; 7%). For 36 (60%) PMs, only a single decision threshold was evaluated. Costs of risk prediction were ignored for 28 (46%) PMs. Uncertainty in outcomes was assessed using probabilistic sensitivity analyses in 22 (55%) HEEs. Despite the huge number of PMs in the medical literature, HEE of PMs remains rare. In addition, we observed great variety in their quality and methodology, which may complicate interpretation of HEE results and implementation of PMs in practice. Guidance on HEE of PMs could encourage and standardize their application and enhance methodological quality, thereby improving adequate use of PM strategies.

A systematic review of health economic evaluations in occupational therapy

Introduction There is a growing need for health professions to demonstrate cost-effectiveness in an increasingly financially constrained climate. High quality health economic evaluations are recommended by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. This systematic review examines the quality of health economic evaluations of occupational therapy interventions. Method A systematic search was conducted, and 262 potential review papers were screened, with nine being selected for review. The consolidated health economic evaluation reporting standards statement alongside a devised scoring frame was used to appraise the quality of the review papers. Results The nine papers appraised varied considerably in quality. The main concerns were: quality of the original clinical study; statement of cost-perspective and time horizon, choice of outcome units; presentation of included costs; use and reporting of uncertainty analyses. Conclusion The current low number and variable quality of health economic evaluations are largely insufficient to inform resource allocation decisions. If occupational therapy as a profession is to flourish, as financial challenges continue to increase, it must engage more strongly with health economic evaluations and produce good quality research that incorporates health economic evaluations at a much higher quality and volume than currently. We are part of a fast evolving healthcare world, and we need to evolve with it.

PHP140 - Assessing the Quality of Health Economic Evaluations Published in Japanese settigns: a systematic review of 1991-2012 Literature

PHP140 - Assessing the Quality of Health Economic Evaluations Published in Japanese settigns: a systematic review of 1991-2012 Literature

Health economic evaluations of medical devices in the People&amp;#39;s Republic of China: A systematic literature review

BackgroundThe objective of this study is to identify and review the methodological quality of health economic evaluations of medical devices performed in the People’s Republic of China. To our knowledge, no such investigations have been performed to date.MethodsA systematic literature review involving searches of Medline, Medline In-Process, the National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database, the Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry of the Tufts Medical Center, and the Wanfang Database was performed. The search spanned the period from 1990 to 2013. Studies on health economic evaluations of medical devices, in-vitro diagnostics, procedures, and the use of medical devices in Chinese health care settings were included. Full-text articles and conference abstracts in English and Chinese were included.ResultsFifty-seven publications were included, 26 (46%) of which were in English and 31 (54%) of which were in Chinese. The included publications covered a wide range of clinical areas, such as surgery (n=23, 40%), screening (n=9, 16%), imaging use (n=6, 11%), kidney intervention (n=4, 7%), and nine other technological areas. Most of the studies (n=31, 54%) were cost analyses. Among the others, 13 (50%) studies used modeling, and another 13 (50%) were within-trial evaluations. Among studies that used modeling, eleven (85%) conducted sensitivity analyses, six of which had one-way sensitivity analysis, whereas one conducted both one-way and two-way sensitivity analyses; four of these eleven modeling-based analyses included probabilistic sensitivity analyses. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was reported in ten (18%) studies, eight of which were screening studies. The remaining two modeling studies were in areas of imaging and oncology.ConclusionThis study indicates that there are major limitations and deficiencies in the health economic evaluations on medical devices performed in the People’s Republic of China. Further efforts are required from different stakeholders – academic, governmental, and privatized – to improve health economic research capacity and to put it to use when informative decisions are made in the health care setting.