The quality of reporting in published cost-utility analyses, 1976-1997

Economic Evaluations of Anti-obesity Interventions in Obese Adults: An Umbrella Review

This umbrella review amalgamates the outcomes of economic evaluations pertaining to bariatric surgeries, pharmacotherapy, and gastric balloon for adult obesity treatment. Six databases were systematically searched. The inclusion criteria were established following the Patient/population Intervention Comparison and Outcomes (PICO) statement. Fifteen reviews met all the inclusion criteria. Eight studies focused on surgical interventions, four on pharmacotherapy, and three on both interventions. No systematic review of the economic evaluation of gastric balloons was identified. The majority of reviews advocated bariatric surgery as a cost-effective approach; however, there was discordance in the interpretation of pharmacological cost-effectiveness. Most of the economic evaluations were conducted from the payer and the healthcare system perspectives. We propose that future economic evaluations assessing weight loss interventions in adults adopt a societal perspective and longer-term time horizons.

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

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.

Transparency, openness, and reproducible research practices are frequently underused in health economic evaluations

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the extent to which articles of economic evaluations of healthcare interventions indexed in MEDLINE incorporate research practices that promote transparency, openness, and reproducibility.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We evaluated a random sample of health economic evaluations indexed in MEDLINE during 2019. We included articles written in English reporting an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio in terms of costs per life years gained, quality-adjusted life years, and/or disability-adjusted life years. Reproducible research practices, openness, and transparency in each article were extracted in duplicate. We explored whether reproducible research practices were associated with self-report use of a guideline.

RESULTS

We included 200 studies published in 147 journals. Almost half were published as open access articles (n = 93; 47%). Most studies (n = 150; 75%) were model-based economic evaluations. In 109 (55%) studies, authors self-reported use a guideline (e.g., for study conduct or reporting). Few studies (n = 31; 16%) reported working from a protocol. In 112 (56%) studies, authors reported the data needed to recreate the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for the base case analysis. This percentage was higher in studies using a guideline than studies not using a guideline (72/109 [66%] with guideline vs. 40/91 [44%] without guideline; risk ratio 1.50, 95% confidence interval 1.15-1.97). Only 10 (5%) studies mentioned access to raw data and analytic code for reanalyses.

CONCLUSION

Transparency, openness, and reproducible research practices are frequently underused in health economic evaluations. This study provides baseline data to compare future progress in the field.

Cost-effectiveness of left atrial appendage closure for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation: a systematic review appraising the methodological quality

BACKGROUND

The increasing global prevalence of atrial fibrillation (AF) has led to a growing demand for stroke prevention strategies, resulting in higher healthcare costs. High-quality economic evaluations of stroke prevention strategies can play a crucial role in maximising efficient allocation of resources. In this systematic review, we assessed the methodological quality of such economic evaluations.

METHODS

We searched electronic databases of PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Econ Lit to identify model-based economic evaluations comparing the left atrial appendage closure procedure (LAAC) and oral anticoagulants published in English since 2000. Data on study characteristics, model-based details, and analyses were collected. The methodological quality was evaluated using the modified Economic Evaluations Bias (ECOBIAS) checklist. For each of the 22 biases listed in this checklist, studies were categorised into one of four groups: low risk, partial risk, high risk due to inadequate reporting, or high risk. To gauge the overall quality of each study, we computed a composite score by assigning + 2, 0, - 1 and - 2 to each risk category, respectively.

RESULTS

In our analysis of 12 studies, majority adopted a healthcare provider or payer perspective and employed Markov Models with the number of health states varying from 6 to 16. Cost-effectiveness results varied across studies. LAAC displayed a probability exceeding 50% of being the cost-effective option in six out of nine evaluations compared to warfarin, six out of eight evaluations when compared to dabigatran, in three out of five evaluations against apixaban, and in two out of three studies compared to rivaroxaban. The methodological quality scores for individual studies ranged from 10 to - 12 out of a possible 24. Most high-risk ratings were due to inadequate reporting, which was prevalent across various biases, including those related to data identification, baseline data, treatment effects, and data incorporation. Cost measurement omission bias and inefficient comparator bias were also common.

CONCLUSIONS

While most studies concluded LAAC to be the cost-effective strategy for stroke prevention in AF, shortcomings in methodological quality raise concerns about reliability and validity of results. Future evaluations, free of these shortcomings, can yield stronger policy evidence.

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

BACKGROUND

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.

METHODS

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.

RESULTS

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.

DISCUSSION

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.

A Systematic Review of Sources of Outcomes and Cost Data Utilized in Economic Evaluation Research Conducted in the Gulf Cooperation Council

Background

Transparency and clarity in reporting of methods used to identify, measure, and value outcomes and resources in published economic evaluations is crucial.

Objective

The aims of this review were to identify and assess the quality of published economic evaluation studies in the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) region, with a specific focus on methods used to identify, measure, and value cost and outcomes data.

Methods

An electronic search of publications from 2009 to October 2019 was performed in three clinical (Medline, Scopus, and EMBASE) and one economic (NHS EED) databases. Full economic evaluations undertaken in GCC countries from any perspective were included. Reference lists of three reviews on the same topic and area were also searched for further eligible articles. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) checklist was used for methodological quality assessment. Data on type and source of cost and outcomes data were collected.

Results

Out of 1857 studies identified, 14 relevant studies were eligible and included. Eleven studies were based in Saudi Arabia, and the remaining studies were published in the United Arab of Emirates (UAE), Qatar, and Oman. Majority of the evaluations were based on the Markov modelling (n=8). None of the studies fully fulfilled the CHEERS quality criteria. Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) was the main outcome (n=10). The EQ-5D was valued using the UK value set tariff (n=6). Published literature was the source of outcomes data in seven studies. Hospital-based data were used as a source of healthcare resource use data in four studies, whereas hospital-based costs (n = 7) combined with other sources such as local/national data were the sources of unit cost data in the majority of the studies.

Conclusion

Rigorous economic evaluations are lacking in the region leading to inaccurate information being given to decision-makers.

Rethinking How We Measure Costs in Implementation Research

BACKGROUND

Hospitals and other health care delivery organizations are sometimes resistant to implementing evidence-based programs, citing unknown budgetary implications.

OBJECTIVE

In this paper, I discuss challenges when estimating health care costs in implementation research.

DESIGN

A case study with intensive care units highlights how including fixed costs can cloud a short-term analysis.

PARTICIPANTS

None.

INTERVENTIONS

None.

MAIN MEASURES

Health care costs, charges and payments.

KEY RESULTS

Cost data should accurately reflect the opportunity costs for the organization(s) providing care. Opportunity costs are defined as the benefits foregone because the resources were not used in the next best alternative. Because there is no database of opportunity costs, cost studies rely on accounting data, charges, or payments as proxies. Unfortunately, these proxies may not reflect the organization's opportunity costs, especially if the goal is to understand the budgetary impact in the next few years.

CONCLUSIONS

Implementation researchers should exclude costs that are fixed in the time period of observation because these assets (e.g., space) cannot be used in the next best alternative. In addition, it is common to use costs from accounting databases where we implicitly assume health care providers are uniformly efficient. If providers are not operating efficiently, especially if there is variation in their efficiency, then this can create further problems. Implementation scientists should be judicious in their use of cost estimates from accounting data, otherwise research results can misguide decision makers.

Reporting gaps in immunization costing studies: Recommendations for improving the practice

•

Poor practices and reporting oversights limit the understanding and use of immunization cost data.

•

Our review identified reporting problems on the vaccines costed, types of costs, and data analysis.

•

Our checklist offers a standard of practice for reporting on immunization costing studies.

•

Reporting that adheres to this checklist will increase the interpretability and use of evidence.

High-quality evidence on the cost of delivering vaccines is essential for policymakers, planners, and donors to ensure sufficient, equitable, predictable, and sustainable financing. However, poor practices and reporting oversights in both the published and grey literature limit the understanding and usability of cost data. This paper describes quality assessment results and quantifies problems with immunization costing study reporting practices found in 68 articles and reports included in an immunization delivery unit cost repository focused on low- and middle-income countries and launched in 2018, the Immunization Delivery Cost Catalogue (IDCC). We recommend a standard of practice for writing up an immunization costing study, in the form of an easy to follow checklist, to increase the quality of reporting and the comparability of results. Reporting that adheres to this checklist will improve the comprehension and interpretability of evidence, increasing the likelihood that costing studies are understood and can be used for resource mobilization and allocation, planning and budgeting, and policy decisions.

Growth and capacity for cost-effectiveness analysis in Africa

As economic evaluation becomes increasingly essential to support universal health coverage (UHC), we aim to understand the growth, characteristics, and quality of cost-effectiveness analyses (CEA) conducted for Africa and to assess institutional capacity and relationship patterns among authors. We searched the Tufts Medical Center CEA Registries and four databases to identify CEAs for Africa. After extracting relevant information, we examined study characteristics, cost-effectiveness ratios, individual and institutional contribution to the literature, and network dyads at the author, institution, and country levels. The 358 identified CEAs for Africa primarily focused on sub-Saharan Africa (96%) and interventions for communicable diseases (77%). Of 2,121 intervention-specific ratios, 8% were deemed cost-saving, and most evaluated immunizations strategies. As 64% of studies included at least one African author, we observed widespread collaboration among international researchers and institutions. However, only 23% of first authors were affiliated with African institutions. The top producers of CEAs among African institutions are more adherent to methodological and reporting guidelines. Although economic evidence in Africa has grown substantially, the capacity for generating such evidence remains limited. Increasing the ability of regional institutions to produce high-quality evidence and facilitate knowledge transfer among African institutions has the potential to inform prioritization decisions for designing UHC.

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

OBJECTIVE

Because of a lack of suitable heart donors, alternatives to transplantation are required. These alternatives can have high costs. The aim of this study was to perform a systematic review of cost-effectiveness studies of ventricular assist devices (VADs) and to assess the level of evidence of relevant studies. The purpose was not to present economic findings.

METHODS

A systematic review was performed using four electronic databases to identify health economic evaluation studies dealing with VADs. The methodological quality and reporting quality of the studies was assessed using three different tools, the Drummond, Cooper, and CHEERS (Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards) checklists.

RESULTS

Of the 1,258 publications identified, thirteen articles were included in this review. Twelve studies were cost-utility analyses and one was a cost-effectiveness analysis. According to the Cooper hierarchy scale, the quality of the data used was heterogeneous. The level of evidence used for clinical effect sizes, safety data, and baseline clinical data was of poor quality. In contrast, cost data were of high quality in most studies. Quality of reporting varied between studies, with an average score of 17.4 (range 15-19) according to the CHEERS checklist.

CONCLUSION

The current study shows that the quality of clinical data used in economic evaluations of VADs is rather poor in general. This is a concern that deserves greater attention in the process of health technology assessment of medical devices.

[Endorsement of guidelines for reporting economic evaluation studies by Spanish biomedical journals]

OBJECTIVE

To examine the endorsement of reporting guidelines for economic evaluation studies, such as the CHEERS (Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards) statement, by Spanish biomedical journals.

METHOD

Cross-sectional analysis of the instructions to authors of Spanish biomedical journals included in the Journal Citation Reports 2017. Two authors examined and extracted the following information: mention of any reporting guideline, the CHEERS statement, the recommendations of the International Committee of Medical Journal Directors (ICMJE) and the Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research (EQUATOR) network.

RESULTS

Of the 28 journals included, 23 (82.1%; 95% confidence interval [95%CI]: 63.1-93.9%) mentioned at least one reporting guideline in the instructions to authors. Only one journal mentioned the CHEERS statement for health economic evaluations. Twenty-four journals (85.7%; 95%CI: 67.3-96.0%) mentioned the ICMJE recommendations and 8 (28.6%; 95%CI: 13.2-48.7%) mentioned the EQUATOR network. The CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) statement for clinical trials was the most- mentioned reporting guideline (n=21; 75.0%; 95%CI: 55.1-89.3%).

DISCUSSION

Most of the instructions to authors do not provide guidance on how to report economic evaluations. Journals should support compliance with reporting guidelines by authors and peer-reviewers.

Systematic reviews of health economic evaluations: A structured analysis of characteristics and methods applied

INTRODUCTION

The number of systematic reviews of health economic evaluations (SR-HEs) is increasing. We aimed at providing a detailed overview of the characteristics and applied methods in recently published SR-HEs.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE (03/2017) for SR-HEs published since 2015 using validated search filters. We included studies that performed a systematic review of full economic evaluations and searched at least one electronic database. We extracted data in a standardized, beforehand piloted form that was deduced from the items of the PRISMA and CHEERS checklists. Data were extracted by one reviewer, and a 10% random sample was verified by a second. We prepared descriptive statistical measures to describe the SR-HEs.

RESULTS

We included 202 SR-HEs. We identified similarities especially in the methods for information retrieval. Study selection, data extraction, and assessment of quality and transferability were frequently not reported or performed without taking measures to reduce errors (eg, independent study selection). A wide range of different tools was applied for critical appraisal. Moreover, the reporting of included economic evaluations and the synthesis of their results showed strong variations.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, we identified few common features in the applied methods for SR-HEs. The information retrieval processes are largely standardized, but many studies did not use validated search filters. For the other systematic review steps, the methodological approaches varied. In particular, important challenges seem to be the methodological quality and transferability assessment as well as presentation and (quantitative) synthesis of results. Efforts are needed for increasing standardization, quality of applied methods, and reporting of SR-HEs.

Reporting guidelines for health research: protocol for a cross-sectional analysis of the EQUATOR Network Library

INTRODUCTION

Transparency and completeness of health research is highly variable, with important deficiencies in the reporting of methods and results of studies. Reporting guidelines aim to improve transparency and quality of research reports, and are often developed by consortia of journal editors, peer reviewers, authors, consumers and other key stakeholders. The objective of this study will be to investigate the characteristics of scientific collaboration among developers and the citation metrics of reporting guidelines of health research.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This is the study protocol for a cross-sectional analysis of completed reporting guidelines indexed in the Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research Network Library. We will search PubMed/MEDLINE and the Web of Science. Screening, selection and data abstraction will be conducted by one researcher and verified by a second researcher. Potential discrepancies will be resolved via discussion. We will include published papers of reporting guidelines written in English. Published papers will have to meet the definition of a reporting guideline related to health research (eg, a checklist, flow diagram or explicit text), with no restrictions by study design, medical specialty, disease or condition. Raw data from each included paper (including title, publication year, journal, subject category, keywords, citations, and the authors' names, author's affiliated institution and country) will be exported from the Web of Science. Descriptive analyses will be conducted (including the number of papers, citations, authors, countries, journals, keywords and main collaboration metrics). We will identify the most prolific authors, institutions, countries, journals and the most cited papers. Network analyses will be carried out to study the structure of collaborations.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

No ethical approval will be required. Findings from this study will be published in peer-reviewed journals. All data will be deposited in a cross-disciplinary public repository. It is anticipated the study findings could be relevant to a variety of audiences.

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

OBJECTIVES

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.

METHODS

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.

RESULTS

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."

CONCLUSIONS

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.

The Reporting Items for Patent Landscapes statement

The reporting quality of patent landscapes is inadequate. The Reporting Items for Patent Landscapes (RIPL) checklist can improve reporting quality.

Evaluating quantity and quality of literature focusing on health economics and pharmacoeconomics in Gulf Cooperation Council countries

BACKGROUND

The importance of pharmacoeconomics and health economics has been augmented. It has the potential to provide evidence to aid in optimal decision-making in the funding of cost-effective medicines and services in Gulf Cooperation Council countries (G.C.C).

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the quality and quantity of health economic researches published until the end of 2017 in G.C.C. and to identify the factors that affect the quality of studies.

METHOD

Studies were included according to predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. The quantity was recorded, and the quality was assessed using the Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES) instrument.

RESULTS

Forty-nine studies were included. The mean (SD) quality score of all studies was 57.83 (25.05), and a high number of reviewed studies (47%) were evaluated as either poor or extremely poor quality. The factors that affect the quality of studies with statistical significance were, the type and method of economic evaluation, the economic outcome was the objective of the research, author`s background, the perspective of the study, health intervention and source of funding.

CONCLUSION

The use of economic evaluation studies in G.C.C was limited. Different factors that affect the quality of articles such as performing a full economic evaluation and choosing societal perspective were identified. Strategies to improve the quality of future studies were recommended.

Study of the evolution and variability of nontraumatic orthopedic surgeries in Brazil-9 years of follow-up: A database study

In Brazil, there are no epidemiological statistics that map nontraumatic orthopedic injuries, their rate of variability, distribution by specialty, fatality rate, and the economic impact that these lesions and their consequences can bring to the country. The objective of this study was to evaluate the rates of variability for skills, deaths, mortality, and the economic impact of nontraumatic orthopedic surgeries in Brazil from 2008 to 2016.This is a descriptive study conducted through the analysis of data relating to the indicators of hospital production regarding orthopedic procedures of the Department of Informatics of the Unified Health System (Departamento de Informática do Sistema Único de saúde-DATASUS) between 2008 and 2016. The level of significance was 5%.There was a predominance of hospitalizations for surgery of the lower limbs, which also resulted in the largest number of deaths. The surgical mortality rate recorded for the hip also needs to be considered. In general, there is a national increase in the number of orthopedic surgeries performed, accompanied by a concomitant increase in the number of deaths and mortality of the population exposed.We observed a growing demand for hospitalization with a consequent increase in lethality and deaths. We can conclude that between 2008 and 2016, the number of hospitalizations for elective nontraumatic orthopedic surgical procedures increased significantly, driven mainly by lower limb surgeries, along with the cost of the Unified Health System (Sistema Único de Saúde-SUS) for these surgeries.

A systematic review of economic evaluation in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma

OBJECTIVES

The economic evaluation (EE) of healthcare interventions has become a necessity. However, high quality needs to be ensured in order to achieve validated results and help making informed decisions. Thus, the objective of the present study was to systematically identify and review published pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma-related EEs and to assess their quality.

METHODS

Systematic literature research was conducted in PubMed and Cochrane to identify published EEs between 2000 and 2015. The quality of each selected EE was assessed by two independent reviewers, using the Drummond's checklist.

RESULTS

Our systematic review was based on 32 EEs and showed a wide variety of methodological approaches, including different perspectives, time horizon, and cost effectiveness analyses. Nearly two-thirds of EEs are full EEs (n = 21), and about one-third of EEs had a Drummond score ≥7, synonymous with 'high quality'. Close to 50% of full EEs had a Drummond score ≥7, whereas all of partial EEs had a Drummond score <7 (n = 11).

CONCLUSIONS

Over the past 15 years, a lot of interest has been evinced over the EE of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) and its direct impact on therapeutic advances in PDAC. To provide a framework for health care decision-making, to facilitate transferability and to lend credibility to health EEs, their quality must be improved. For the last 4 years, a tendency towards a quality improvement of these studies has been observed, probably coupled with a context of rational decision-making in health care, a better and wider spread of recommendations and thus, medical practitioners' full endorsement.

Reporting and Analysis of Trial-Based Cost-Effectiveness Evaluations in Obstetrics and Gynaecology

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

The aim was to systematically review whether the reporting and analysis of trial-based cost-effectiveness evaluations in the field of obstetrics and gynaecology comply with guidelines and recommendations, and whether this has improved over time.

DATA SOURCES AND SELECTION CRITERIA

A literature search was performed in MEDLINE, the NHS Economic Evaluation Database (NHS EED) and the Health Technology Assessment (HTA) database to identify trial-based cost-effectiveness evaluations in obstetrics and gynaecology published between January 1, 2000 and May 16, 2017. Studies performed in middle- and low-income countries and studies related to prevention, midwifery, and reproduction were excluded.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Reporting quality was assessed using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standard (CHEERS) statement (a modified version with 21 items, as we focused on trial-based cost-effectiveness evaluations) and the statistical quality was assessed using a literature-based list of criteria (8 items). Exploratory regression analyses were performed to assess the association between reporting and statistical quality scores and publication year.

RESULTS

The electronic search resulted in 5482 potentially eligible studies. Forty-five studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria, 22 in obstetrics and 23 in gynaecology. Twenty-seven (60%) studies did not adhere to 50% (n = 10) or more of the reporting quality items and 32 studies (71%) did not meet 50% (n = 4) or more of the statistical quality items. As for the statistical quality, no study used the appropriate method to assess cost differences, no advanced methods were used to deal with missing data, and clustering of data was ignored in all studies. No significant improvements over time were found in reporting or statistical quality in gynaecology, whereas in obstetrics a significant improvement in reporting and statistical quality was found over time.

LIMITATIONS

The focus of this review was on trial-based cost-effectiveness evaluations in obstetrics and gynaecology, so further research is needed to explore whether results from this review are generalizable to other medical disciplines.

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS OF KEY FINDINGS

The reporting and analysis of trial-based cost-effectiveness evaluations in gynaecology and obstetrics is generally poor. Since this can result in biased results, incorrect conclusions, and inappropriate healthcare decisions, there is an urgent need for improvement in the methods of cost-effectiveness evaluations in this field.

Economic Evaluations of Pathology Tests, 2010-2015: A Scoping Review

BACKGROUND

Concerns about pathology testing such as the value provided by new tests and the potential for inappropriate utilization have led to a greater need to assess costs and benefits. Economic evaluations are a formal method of analyzing costs and benefits, yet for pathology tests, questions remain about the scope and quality of the economic evidence.

OBJECTIVE

To describe the extent and quality of published evidence provided by economic evaluations of pathology tests from 2010 to 2015.

METHODS

Economic evaluations relating to pathology tests from 2010 to 2015 were reviewed. Eight databases were searched for published studies, and details recorded for the country, clinical focus, type of testing, and consideration of sensitivity, specificity, and false test results. The reporting quality of studies was assessed using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards checklist and cost-effectiveness ratios were analyzed for publication bias.

RESULTS

We found 356 economic evaluations of pathology tests, most of which regarded developed countries. The most common economic evaluations were cost-utility analyses and the most common clinical focus was infectious diseases. More than half of the studies considered sensitivity and specificity, but few studies considered the impact of false test results. The average Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards checklist score was 17 out of 24. Cost-utility ratios were commonly less than $10,000/quality-adjusted life-year or more than $200,000/quality-adjusted life-year.

CONCLUSIONS

The number of economic evaluations of pathology tests has increased in recent years, but the rate of increase has plateaued. Furthermore, the quality of studies in the past 5 years was highly variable, and there is some question of publication bias in reporting cost-effectiveness ratios.

Methods to construct a step-by-step beginner's guide to decision analytic cost-effectiveness modeling

BACKGROUND

Although guidance on good research practice in health economic modeling is widely available, there is still a need for a simpler instructive resource which could guide a beginner modeler alongside modeling for the first time.

AIM

To develop a beginner's guide to be used as a handheld guide contemporaneous to the model development process.

METHODS

A systematic review of best practice guidelines was used to construct a framework of steps undertaken during the model development process. Focused methods review supplemented this framework. Consensus was obtained among a group of model developers to review and finalize the content of the preliminary beginner's guide. The final beginner's guide was used to develop cost-effectiveness models.

RESULTS

Thirty-two best practice guidelines were data extracted, synthesized, and critically evaluated to identify steps for model development, which formed a framework for the beginner's guide. Within five phases of model development, eight broad submethods were identified and 19 methodological reviews were conducted to develop the content of the draft beginner's guide. Two rounds of consensus agreement were undertaken to reach agreement on the final beginner's guide. To assess fitness for purpose (ease of use and completeness), models were developed independently and by the researcher using the beginner's guide.

CONCLUSION

A combination of systematic review, methods reviews, consensus agreement, and validation was used to construct a step-by-step beginner's guide for developing decision analytical cost-effectiveness models. The final beginner's guide is a step-by-step resource to accompany the model development process from understanding the problem to be modeled, model conceptualization, model implementation, and model checking through to reporting of the model results.

Quality of pharmacoeconomic research in China: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

The number of pharmacoeconomic publications in the literature from China has risen rapidly, but the quality of pharmacoeconomic publications from China has not been analyzed.

OBJECTIVES

This study aims to identify all recent pharmacoeconomic publications from China, to critically appraise the reporting quality, and to summarize the results.

METHODS

Four databases (PubMed, Web of Science, Medline, and EmBase) were searched for original articles published up to December 31, 2014. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards statement including 24 items was used to assess the quality of reporting of these articles.

RESULTS

Of 1046 articles identified, 32 studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria. They were published in 23 different journals. Quality of reporting varied between studies, with an average score of 18.7 (SD = 4.33) out of 24 (range 9-23.5). There was an increasing trend of pharmacoeconomic publications and reporting quality over years from 2003 to 2014. According to the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards, the reporting quality for the items including "title," "comparators of method," and "measurement of effectiveness" are quite low, with less than 50% of studies fully satisfying these reporting standards. In contrast, reporting was good for the items including "introduction," "study perspective," "choice of health outcomes," "study parameters," "characterizing heterogeneity," and "discussion," with more than 75% of the articles satisfying these reporting criteria. The remaining items fell in between these 2 extremes, with 50% to 75% of studies satisfying these criteria.

CONCLUSION

Our study suggests the need for improvement in a number of reporting criteria. But the criteria for which reporting quality was low seem to be limitations that would be straightforward to correct in future studies.

Quality of Abstracts of Papers Reporting Original Cost-Effectiveness Analyses

Background . Although many peer-reviewed journals have adopted standards for reporting cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs), guidelines do not exist for the accompanying abstracts. Abstracts are the most easily accessed portion of journal articles, yet little is known about their quality. The authors examined the extent to which abstracts of published CEAs include key data elements (intervention, comparator, target population, study perspective) and assessed the effect of journal characteristics on reporting quality. Methods .Systematic review of the English-language medical literature from 1998 through 2001. The authors searched MEDLINE for original CEAs reported in costs per quality-adjusted life years(i.e., cost-utility analyses). Two independent readers abstracted data elements and met to resolve discrepancies. Results . Among the 303 abstracts reviewed, a clear description of the intervention was present in 94%, comparator in 71%, target population in 85%, and study perspective in 28%. All 4 data elements were reported in 20% of abstracts, 3 elements in 49%, 2 in 22%, and 0 or 1 in 9%. In journals with CEA-specific abstract reporting requirements, structured abstract requirements, or impact factors ≥ 10, significantly more data were included in abstracts than in journals without these features (P < 0.01 for all comparisons). Conclusions . Abstracts of published CEAs frequently omit data elements critical to proper study interpretation. An explicit core set of reporting standards is needed, based on the standards by the US Public Health Service’s Panel on Cost-Effectiveness for reporting of CEAs, but specific to the accompanying abstracts.

Can We Better Prioritize Resources for Cost-Utility Research?

Purpose. We examined 512 published cost-utility analyses (CUAs) in the U.S. and other developed countries from 1976 through 2001 to determine: 1) the types of interventions studied; 2) whether they cover diseases and conditions with the highest burden; and, 3) to what extent they have covered leading health concerns defined by the Healthy People 2010 report. Data and Methods. We compared rankings of the most common diseases covered by the CUAs to rankings of U.S. disease burden. We also examined the extent to which CUAs covered key Healthy People 2010 priorites. Results. CUAs have focused mostly on pharmaceuticals (40%) and surgical procedures (16%). When compared to leading causes of DALYs, the data show overrepresentation of CUAs in cerebrovascular disease, diabetes, breast cancer, and HIV/AIDS, and underrepresentation in depression and bipolar disorder, injuries, and substance abuse disorders. Few CUAs have targeted Healthy People 2010 areas, such as physical activity. Conclusions. Published CUAs are associated with burden measures, but have not covered certain important health problems. These discrepancies do not alone indicate that society has been targeting resources for research inefficiently, but they do suggest the need to formalize the question of where each CUA research dollar might do the most good.

Cost-utility analyses of drug therapies in breast cancer: a systematic review

The economic evaluation (EE) of health care products has become a necessity. Their quality must be high in order to trust the results and make informed decisions. While cost-utility analyses (CUAs) should be preferred to cost-effectiveness analyses in the oncology area, the quality of breast cancer (BC)-related CUA has been given little attention so far. Thus, firstly, a systematic review of published CUA related to drug therapies for BC, gene expression profiling, and HER2 status testing was performed. Secondly, the quality of selected CUA was assessed and the factors associated with a high-quality CUA identified. The systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed, MEDLINE/EMBASE, and Cochrane to identify published CUA between 2000 and 2014. After screening and data extraction, the quality of each selected CUA was assessed by two independent reviewers, using the checklist proposed by Drummond et al. The analysis of factors associated with a high-quality CUA (defined as a Drummond score ≥7) was performed using a two-step approach. Our systematic review was based on 140 CUAs and showed a wide variety of methodological approaches, including differences in the perspective adopted, the time horizon, measurement of cost and effectiveness, and more specially health-state utility values (HSUVs). The median Drummond score was 7 [range 3-10]. Only one in two of the CUA (n = 74) had a Drummond score ≥7, synonymous of "high quality." The statistically significant predictors of a high-quality CUA were article with "gene expression profiling" topic (p = 0.001), consulting or pharmaceutical company as main location of first author (p = 0.004), and articles with both incremental cost-utility ratio and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio as outcomes of EE (p = 0.02). Our systematic review identified only 140 CUAs published over the past 15 years with one in two of high quality. It showed a wide variety of methodological approaches, especially focused on HSUVs. A critical appraisal of utility values is necessary to better understand one of the main difficulties encountered by authors and propose areas for improvement to increase the quality of CUA. Since the last 5 years, there is a tendency toward an improvement in the quality of these studies, probably coupled with economic context, a better and widely spreading of recommendations and thus appropriation by medical practitioners. That being said, there is an urgent need for mandatory use of European and international recommendations to ensure quality of such approaches and to allow easy comparison.

A Systematic Review of the Cost-Effectiveness of Long-Term Mechanical Circulatory Support

BACKGROUND

Mechanical circulatory support (MCS) is an option for the treatment of medically intractable end-stage heart failure. MCS therapy, however, is resource intensive.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this report was to systematically review the MCS cost-effectiveness literature as it pertains to the treatment of adult patients in end-stage heart failure.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic search and narrative review of available cost- effectiveness and cost-utility analyses of MCS in adult patients with end-stage heart failure.

RESULTS

Eleven studies analyzing the cost-effectiveness or cost-utility of MCS were identified. Seven studies focused on bridge to transplantation, three studies focused on destination therapy, and one study presented analyses of both strategies. Two articles evaluated the cost-effectiveness of the HeartMate II (Thoratec Corp., Pleasanton, CA). Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios between MCS and medical management ranged between $85,025 and $200,166 for bridge to transplantation and between $87,622 and $1,257,946 for destination therapy (2012 Canadian dollars per quality-adjusted life-year). Sensitivity analyses indicated that improvements in survival and quality of life and reductions in device and initial hospital-stay costs may improve the cost-effectiveness of MCS.

CONCLUSIONS

Current studies suggest that MCS is likely not cost-effective with reference to generally accepted or explicitly stated thresholds. Refined patient selection, complication rates, achieved quality of life, and device/surgical costs, however, could modify the cost-effectiveness of MCS.

Economic evaluation of vaccines in Canada: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Economic evaluations should form part of the basis for public health decision making on new vaccine programs. While Canada's national immunization advisory committee does not systematically include economic evaluations in immunization decision making, there is increasing interest in adopting them. We therefore sought to examine the extent and quality of economic evaluations of vaccines in Canada.

OBJECTIVE

We conducted a systematic review of economic evaluations of vaccines in Canada to determine and summarize: comprehensiveness across jurisdictions, studied vaccines, funding sources, study designs, research quality, and changes over time.

METHODS

Searches in multiple databases were conducted using the terms "vaccine," "economics" and "Canada." Descriptive data from eligible manuscripts was abstracted and three authors independently evaluated manuscript quality using a 7-point Likert-type scale scoring tool based on criteria from the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR).

RESULTS

42/175 articles met the search criteria. Of these, Canada-wide studies were most common (25/42), while provincial studies largely focused on the three populous provinces of Ontario, Quebec and British Columbia. The most common funding source was industry (17/42), followed by government (7/42). 38 studies used mathematical models estimating expected economic benefit while 4 studies examined post-hoc data on established programs. Studies covered 10 diseases, with 28/42 addressing pediatric vaccines. Many studies considered cost-utility (22/42) and the majority of these studies reported favorable economic results (16/22). The mean quality score was 5.9/7 and was consistent over publication date, funding sources, and disease areas.

CONCLUSIONS

We observed diverse approaches to evaluate vaccine economics in Canada. Given the increased complexity of economic studies evaluating vaccines and the impact of results on public health practice, Canada needs improved, transparent and consistent processes to review and assess the findings of the economic evaluations of vaccines.

Comparison of Economic Evaluation Methods Across Low-income, Middle-income and High-income Countries: What are the Differences and Why?

There are marked differences in methods used for undertaking economic evaluations across low-income, middle-income, and high-income countries. We outline the most apparent dissimilarities and reflect on their underlying reasons. We randomly sampled 50 studies from each of three country income groups from a comprehensive database of 2844 economic evaluations published between January 2012 and May 2014. Data were extracted on ten methodological areas: (i) availability of guidelines; (ii) research questions; (iii) perspective; (iv) cost data collection methods; (v) cost data analysis; (vi) outcome measures; (vii) modelling techniques; (viii) cost-effectiveness thresholds; (ix) uncertainty analysis; and (x) applicability. Comparisons were made across income groups and odds ratios calculated. Contextual heterogeneity rightly drives some of the differences identified. Other differences appear less warranted and may be attributed to variation in government health sector capacity, in health economics research capacity and in expectations of funders, journals and peer reviewers. By highlighting these differences, we seek to start a debate about the underlying reasons why they have occurred and to what extent the differences are conducive for methodological advancements. We suggest a number of specific areas in which researchers working in countries of differing environments could learn from one another.

The quality of reporting methods and results of cost-effectiveness analyses in Spain: a methodological systematic review

BACKGROUND

Cost-effectiveness analysis has been recognized as an important tool to determine the efficiency of healthcare interventions and services. There is a need for evaluating the reporting of methods and results of cost-effectiveness analyses and establishing their validity. We describe and examine reporting characteristics of methods and results of cost-effectiveness analyses conducted in Spain during more than two decades.

METHODS

A methodological systematic review was conducted with the information obtained through an updated literature review in PubMed and complementary databases (e.g. Scopus, ISI Web of Science, National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database (NHS EED) and Health Technology Assessment (HTA) databases from Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD), Índice Médico Español (IME) Índice Bibliográfico Español en Ciencias de la Salud (IBECS)). We identified cost-effectiveness analyses conducted in Spain that used quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) as outcome measures (period 1989-December 2014). Two reviewers independently extracted the data from each paper. The data were analysed descriptively.

RESULTS

In total, 223 studies were included. Very few studies (10; 4.5 %) reported working from a protocol. Most studies (200; 89.7 %) were simulation models and included a median of 1000 patients. Only 105 (47.1 %) studies presented an adequate description of the characteristics of the target population. Most study interventions were categorized as therapeutic (189; 84.8 %) and nearly half (111; 49.8 %) considered an active alternative as the comparator. Effectiveness of data was derived from a single study in 87 (39.0 %) reports, and only few (40; 17.9 %) used evidence synthesis-based estimates. Few studies (42; 18.8 %) reported a full description of methods for QALY calculation. The majority of the studies (147; 65.9 %) reported that the study intervention produced "more costs and more QALYs" than the comparator. Most studies (200; 89.7 %) reported favourable conclusions. Main funding source was the private for-profit sector (135; 60.5 %). Conflicts of interest were not disclosed in 88 (39.5 %) studies.

CONCLUSIONS

This methodological review reflects that reporting of several important aspects of methods and results are frequently missing in published cost-effectiveness analyses. Without full and transparent reporting of how studies were designed and conducted, it is difficult to assess the validity of study findings and conclusions.

What Are the Strength of Recommendations and Methodologic Reporting in Health Economic Studies in Orthopaedic Surgery?

BACKGROUND

Cost-effectiveness research is an increasingly used tool in evaluating treatments in orthopaedic surgery. Without high-quality primary-source data, the results of a cost-effectiveness study are either unreliable or heavily dependent on sensitivity analyses of the findings from the source studies. However, to our knowledge, the strength of recommendations provided by these studies in orthopaedics has not been studied.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

We asked: (1) What are the strengths of recommendations in recent orthopaedic cost-effectiveness studies? (2) What are the reasons authors cite for weak recommendations? (3) What are the methodologic reporting practices used by these studies?

METHODS

The titles of all articles published in six different orthopaedic journals from January 1, 2004, through April 1, 2014, were scanned for original health economics studies comparing two different types of treatment or intervention. The full texts of included studies were reviewed to determine the strength of recommendations determined subjectively by our study team, with studies providing equivocal conclusions stemming from a lack or uncertainty surrounding key primary data classified as weak and those with definitive conclusions not lacking in high-quality primary data classified as strong. The reasons underlying a weak designation were noted, and methodologic practices reported in each of the studies were examined using a validated instrument. A total of 79 articles met our prespecified inclusion criteria and were evaluated in depth.

RESULTS

Of the articles included, 50 (63%) provided strong recommendations, whereas 29 (37%) provided weak recommendations. Of the 29 studies, clinical outcomes data were cited in 26 references as being insufficient to provide definitive conclusions, whereas cost and utility data were cited in 13 and seven articles, respectively. Methodologic reporting practices varied greatly, with mixed adherence to framing, costs, and results reporting. The framing variables included clearly defined intervention, adequate description of a comparator, study perspective clearly stated, and reported discount rate for future costs and quality-adjusted life years. Reporting costs variables included economic data collected alongside a clinical trial or another primary source and clear statement of the year of monetary units. Finally, results reporting included whether a sensitivity analysis was performed.

CONCLUSIONS

Given that a considerable portion of orthopaedic cost-effectiveness studies provide weak recommendations and that methodologic reporting practices varied greatly among strong and weak studies, we believe that clinicians should exercise great caution when considering the conclusions of cost-effectiveness studies. Future research could assess the effect of such cost-effectiveness studies in clinical practice, and whether the strength of recommendations of a study's conclusions has any effect on practice patterns.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Given the increasing use of cost-effectiveness studies in orthopaedic surgery, understanding the quality of these studies and the reasons that limit the ability of studies to provide more definitive recommendations is critical. Highlighting the heterogeneity of methodologic reporting practices will aid clinicians in interpreting the conclusions of cost-effectiveness studies and improve future research efforts.

The changing face of the cost-utility literature, 1990-2012

OBJECTIVES

Cost-utility analyses (CUAs) have been published widely over the years to measure the value of health care interventions. We investigated the growth and characteristics of CUAs in the peer-reviewed English-language literature through 2012.

METHODS

We analyzed data from the Tufts Medical Center Cost-Effectiveness Analysis (CEA) Registry, a database containing more than 3700 English-language CUAs published through 2012. We summarized various study characteristics (e.g., intervention type, funding source, and journal of publication) and methodological practices (e.g., use of probabilistic sensitivity analysis) over three time periods: 1990 to 1999, 2000 to 2009, and 2010 to 2012. We also examined CUAs by country, region, and the degree to which diseases studied correlate with disease burden.

RESULTS

The number of published CUAs rose from 34 per year from 1990 to 1999 to 431 per year from 2010 to 2012. The proportion of studies focused on the United States declined from 61% during 1990 to 1999 to 35% during 2010 to 2012 (P < 0.0001). Although still small compared with CUAs in higher income countries, the number of CUAs focused on lower and middle-income countries has risen sharply. A large fraction of studies pertain to pharmaceuticals (46% during 2010-2012). In recent years, most studies included probabilistic sensitivity analysis (67% during 2010-2012). Journals publishing CUAs vary widely in the percentage of their studies funded by drug companies. Some conditions, such as injuries, have high burden but few CUAs.

CONCLUSIONS

Our review reveals considerable growth and some change in the cost-utility literature in recent years. The data suggest growing interest in cost-utility methodology, particularly in non-Western countries.

Methodological reviews of economic evaluations in health care: what do they target?

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES

An increasing number of published studies of economic evaluations of health technologies have been reviewed and summarized with different purposes, among them to facilitate decision-making processes. These reviews have covered different aspects of economic evaluations, using a variety of methodological approaches. The aim of this study is to analyze the methodological characteristics of the reviews of economic evaluations in health care, published during the period 1990-2010, to identify their main features and the potential missing elements. This may help to develop a common procedure for elaborating these kinds of reviews.

METHODS

We performed systematic searches in electronic databases (Scopus, Medline and PubMed) of methodological reviews published in English, period 1990-2010. We selected the articles whose main purpose was to review and assess the methodology applied in the economic evaluation studies. We classified the data according to the study objectives, period of the review, number of reviewed studies, methodological and non-methodological items assessed, medical specialty, type of disease and technology, databases used for the review and their main conclusions. We performed a descriptive statistical analysis and checked how generalizability issues were considered in the reviews.

RESULTS

We identified 76 methodological reviews, 42 published in the period 1990-2001 and 34 during 2002-2010. The items assessed most frequently (by 70% of the reviews) were perspective, type of economic study, uncertainty and discounting. The reviews also described the type of intervention and disease, funding sources, country in which the evaluation took place, type of journal and author's characteristics. Regarding the intertemporal comparison, higher frequencies were found in the second period for two key methodological items: the source of effectiveness data and the models used in the studies. However, the generalizability issues that apparently are creating a growing interest in the economic evaluation literature did not receive as much attention in the reviews of the second period. The remaining items showed similar frequencies in both periods.

CONCLUSIONS

Increasingly more reviews of economic evaluation studies aim to analyze the application of methodological principles, and offer summaries of papers classified by either diseases or health technologies. These reviews are useful for finding literature trends, aims of studies and possible deficiencies in the implementation of methods of specific health interventions. As no significant methodological improvement was clearly detected in the two periods analyzed, it would be convenient to pay more attention to the methodological aspects of the reviews.

Do economic evaluation studies inform effective healthcare resource allocation in Iran? A critical review of the literature

To aid informed health sector decision-making, data from sufficient high quality economic evaluations must be available to policy makers. To date, no known study has analysed the quantity and quality of available Iranian economic evaluation studies. This study aimed to assess the quantity, quality and targeting of economic evaluation studies conducted in the Iranian context.

The study systematically reviewed full economic evaluation studies (n = 30) published between 1999 and 2012 in international and local journals. The findings of the review indicate that although the literature on economic evaluation in Iran is growing, these evaluations were of poor quality and suffer from several major methodological flaws. Furthermore, the review reveals that economic evaluation studies have not addressed the major health problems in Iran.

While the availability of evidence is no guarantee that it will be used to aid decision-making, the absence of evidence will certainly preclude its use. Considering the deficiencies in the data identified by this review, current economic evaluations cannot be a useful source of information for decision makers in Iran. To improve the quality and overall usefulness of economic evaluations we would recommend; 1) developing clear national guidelines for the conduct of economic evaluations, 2) highlighting priority areas where information from such studies would be most useful and 3) training researchers and policy makers in the calculation and use of economic evaluation data.

The quality of economic studies of cancer pharmacogenomics: a quantitative appraisal of the evidence

This study evaluated the quality of health economic studies of cancer pharmacogenomics (PGx). A systematic search of the literature for economic studies of PGx was conducted in four common cancers. Evaluation of study quality was carried out using the quality of health economic studies instrument. Thirty-nine articles met our eligibility criteria and were selected and accepted for further statistical analyses. The majority of articles (85%) were studies focusing on breast cancer. The overall weighted mean quality score was 85.10, with a range from 21 to 100. Eighty-seven percent of articles were categorized as good quality, whereas some 10 and 3% were categorized as moderate and poor quality, respectively. The quality of economic studies of cancer PGx is generally good but varied widely. We identified several attributes that are predictive of quality. Our findings may be useful for oncologists, health economists and decision makers interested in evaluating studies involving PGx.

Spending of HIV resources in Asia and Eastern Europe: systematic review reveals the need to shift funding allocations towards priority populations

INTRODUCTION

It is increasingly important to prioritize the most cost-effective HIV interventions. We sought to summarize the evidence on which types of interventions provide the best value for money in regions with concentrated HIV epidemics.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review of peer-reviewed and grey literature reporting measurements of cost-effectiveness or cost-benefit for HIV/AIDS interventions in Asia and Eastern Europe. We also collated HIV/AIDS spending assessment data from case-study countries in the region.

RESULTS

We identified 91 studies for inclusion, 47 of which were from peer-reviewed journals. Generally, in concentrated settings, prevention of mother-to-child transmission programmes and prevention programmes targeting people who inject drugs and sex workers had lower incremental cost-effectiveness ratios than programmes aimed at the general population. The few studies evaluating programmes targeting men who have sex with men indicate moderate cost-effectiveness. Collation of prevention programme spending data from 12 countries in the region (none of which had generalized epidemics) indicated that resources for the general population/non-targeted was greater than 30% for eight countries and greater than 50% for five countries.

CONCLUSIONS

There is a misalignment between national spending on HIV/AIDS responses and the most affected populations across the region. In concentrated epidemics, scarce funding should be directed more towards most-at-risk populations. Reaching consensus on general principles of cost-effectiveness of programmes by epidemic settings is difficult due to inconsistent evaluation approaches. Adopting a standard costing, impact evaluation, benefits calculation, analysis and reporting framework would enable cross comparisons and improve HIV resource prioritization and allocation.

Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement

Economic evaluations of health interventions pose a particular challenge for reporting. There is also a need to consolidate and update existing guidelines and promote their use in a user friendly manner. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement is an attempt to consolidate and update previous health economic evaluation guidelines efforts into one current, useful reporting guidance.The primary audiences for the CHEERS statement are researchers reporting economic evaluations and the editors and peer reviewers assessing them for publication. The need for new reporting guidance was identified by a survey of medical editors. A list of possible items based on a systematic review was created. A two round, modified Delphi panel consisting of representatives from academia, clinical practice, industry, government, and the editorial community was conducted. Out of 44 candidate items, 24 items and accompanying recommendations were developed. The recommendations are contained in a user friendly, 24 item checklist. A copy of the statement, accompanying checklist, and this report can be found on the ISPOR Health Economic Evaluations Publication Guidelines Task Force website (www.ispor.org/TaskForces/EconomicPubGuidelines.asp). We hope CHEERS will lead to better reporting, and ultimately, better health decisions. To facilitate dissemination and uptake, the CHEERS statement is being co-published across 10 health economics and medical journals. We encourage other journals and groups, to endorse CHEERS. The author team plans to review the checklist for an update in 5 years.

Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement

Economic evaluations of health interventions pose a particular challenge for reporting. There is also a need to consolidate and update existing guidelines and promote their use in a user friendly manner. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement is an attempt to consolidate and update previous health economic evaluation guidelines efforts into one current, useful reporting guidance. The primary audiences for the CHEERS statement are researchers reporting economic evaluations and the editors and peer reviewers assessing them for publication. The need for new reporting guidance was identified by a survey of medical editors. A list of possible items based on a systematic review was created. A two round, modified Delphi panel consisting of representatives from academia, clinical practice, industry, government, and the editorial community was conducted. Out of 44 candidate items, 24 items and accompanying recommendations were developed. The recommendations are contained in a user friendly, 24 item checklist. A copy of the statement, accompanying checklist, and this report can be found on the ISPOR Health Economic Evaluations Publication Guidelines Task Force website ( www.ispor.org/TaskForces/EconomicPubGuidelines.asp). We hope CHEERS will lead to better reporting, and ultimately, better health decisions. To facilitate dissemination and uptake, the CHEERS statement is being co-published across 10 health economics and medical journals. We encourage other journals and groups, to endorse CHEERS. The author team plans to review the checklist for an update in five years.

A systematic review and methodological evaluation of published cost-effectiveness analyses of aromatase inhibitors versus tamoxifen in early stage breast cancer

BACKGROUND

A key priority in developing policies for providing affordable cancer care is measuring the value for money of new therapies using cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs). For CEA to be useful it should focus on relevant outcomes and include thorough investigation of uncertainty. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of five years of aromatase inhibitors (AI) versus five years of tamoxifen in the treatment of post-menopausal women with early stage breast cancer, show benefit of AI in terms of disease free survival (DFS) but not overall survival (OS) and indicate higher risk of fracture with AI. Policy-relevant CEA of AI versus tamoxifen should focus on OS and include analysis of uncertainty over key assumptions.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review of published CEAs comparing an AI to tamoxifen. We searched Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsychINFO, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews without language restrictions. We selected CEAs with outcomes expressed as cost per life year or cost per quality adjusted life year (QALY). We assessed quality using the Neumann checklist. Using structured forms two abstractors collected descriptive information, sources of data, baseline assumptions on effectiveness and adverse events, and recorded approaches to assessing parameter uncertainty, methodological uncertainty, and structural uncertainty.

RESULTS

We identified 1,622 citations and 18 studies met inclusion criteria. All CE estimates assumed a survival benefit for aromatase inhibitors. Twelve studies performed sensitivity analysis on the risk of adverse events and 7 assumed no additional mortality risk with any adverse event. Sub-group analysis was limited; 6 studies examined older women, 2 examined women with low recurrence risk, and 1 examined women with multiple comorbidities.

CONCLUSION

Published CEAs comparing AIs to tamoxifen assumed an OS benefit though none has been shown in RCTs, leading to an overestimate of the cost-effectiveness of AIs. Results of these CEA analyses may be suboptimal for guiding policy.

Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement

Economic evaluations of health interventions pose a particular challenge for reporting. There is also a need to consolidate and update existing guidelines and promote their use in a user friendly manner. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement is an attempt to consolidate and update previous health economic evaluation guidelines efforts into one current, useful reporting guidance. The primary audiences for the CHEERS statement are researchers reporting economic evaluations and the editors and peer reviewers assessing them for publication.The need for new reporting guidance was identified by a survey of medical editors. A list of possible items based on a systematic review was created. A two round, modified Delphi panel consisting of representatives from academia, clinical practice, industry, government, and the editorial community was conducted. Out of 44 candidate items, 24 items and accompanying recommendations were developed. The recommendations are contained in a user friendly, 24 item checklist. A copy of the statement, accompanying checklist, and this report can be found on the ISPOR Health Economic Evaluations Publication Guidelines Task Force website ( www.ispor.org/TaskForces/EconomicPubGuidelines.asp ).We hope CHEERS will lead to better reporting, and ultimately, better health decisions. To facilitate dissemination and uptake, the CHEERS statement is being co-published across 10 health economics and medical journals. We encourage other journals and groups, to endorse CHEERS. The author team plans to review the checklist for an update in five years.

CONSOLIDATED HEALTH ECONOMIC EVALUATION REPORTING STANDARDS (CHEERS) STATEMENT

Economic evaluations of health interventions pose a particular challenge for reporting. There is also a need to consolidate and update existing guidelines and promote their use in a user friendly manner. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement is an attempt to consolidate and update previous health economic evaluation guidelines efforts into one current, useful reporting guidance. The primary audiences for the CHEERS statement are researchers reporting economic evaluations and the editors and peer reviewers assessing them for publication.

The need for new reporting guidance was identified by a survey of medical editors. A list of possible items based on a systematic review was created. A two round, modified Delphi panel consisting of representatives from academia, clinical practice, industry, government, and the editorial community was conducted. Out of 44 candidate items, 24 items and accompanying recommendations were developed. The recommendations are contained in a user friendly, 24 item checklist. A copy of the statement, accompanying checklist, and this report can be found on the ISPOR Health Economic Evaluations Publication Guidelines Task Force website (www.ispor.org/TaskForces/EconomicPubGuidelines.asp).

We hope CHEERS will lead to better reporting, and ultimately, better health decisions. To facilitate dissemination and uptake, the CHEERS statement is being co-published across 10 health economics and medical journals. We encourage other journals and groups, to endorse CHEERS. The author team plans to review the checklist for an update in five years.

An analysis of the influence of framework aspects on the study design of health economic modeling evaluations

Research and practical guidelines have many implications for how to structure a health economic study. A major focus in recent decades has been the quality of health economic research. In practice, the factors influencing a study design are not limited to the quest for quality. Moreover, the framework of the study is important. This research addresses three major questions related to these framework aspects. First, we want to know whether the design of health economic studies has changed over time. Second, we want to know how the subject of a study, whether it is a process or product innovation, influences the parameters of the study design. Third, one of the most important questions we will answer is whether and how the study's source of funding has an impact on the design of the research. To answer these questions, a total of 234 health economic studies were analyzed using a correspondence analysis and a logistic regression analysis. All three categories of framework factors have an influence on the aspects of the study design. Health economic studies have evolved over time, leading to the use of more advanced methods like complex sensitivity analyses. Additionally, the patient's point of view has increased in importance. The evaluation of product innovations has focused more on utility concepts. On the other hand, the source of funding may influence only a few aspects of the study design, such as the use of evaluation methods, the source of data, and the use of certain utility measures. The most important trends in health care, such as the emphasis on the patients' point of view, become increasingly established in health economic evaluations with the passage of time. Although methodological challenges remain, modern information and communication technologies provide a basis for increasing the complexity and quality of health economic studies if used frequently.

Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement

Economic evaluations of health interventions pose a particular challenge for reporting. There is also a need to consolidate and update existing guidelines and promote their use in a user friendly manner. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement is an attempt to consolidate and update previous health economic evaluation guidelines efforts into one current, useful reporting guidance. The primary audiences for the CHEERS statement are researchers reporting economic evaluations and the editors and peer reviewers assessing them for publication.

The need for new reporting guidance was identified by a survey of medical editors. A list of possible items based on a systematic review was created. A two round, modified Delphi panel consisting of representatives from academia, clinical practice, industry, government, and the editorial community was conducted. Out of 44 candidate items, 24 items and accompanying recommendations were developed. The recommendations are contained in a user friendly, 24 item checklist. A copy of the statement, accompanying checklist, and this report can be found on the ISPOR Health Economic Evaluations Publication Guidelines Task Force website (http://www.ispor.org/TaskForces/EconomicPubGuidelines.asp).

We hope CHEERS will lead to better reporting, and ultimately, better health decisions. To facilitate dissemination and uptake, the CHEERS statement is being co-published across 10 health economics and medical journals. We encourage other journals and groups, to endorse CHEERS. The author team plans to review the checklist for an update in five years.