Cargando…

Incorporating economic methods into Cochrane systematic reviews: case studies in brain tumour research

BACKGROUND: Cochrane systematic reviews have established methods for identifying and critically appraising empirical evidence in health. In addition to evidence regarding the clinical effectiveness of interventions, the resource implications of such interventions can have a huge impact on a decision...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Kernohan, Ashleigh, Robinson, Tomos, Vale, Luke
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10239097/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37268981
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13643-023-02254-w
_version_ 1785053426955059200
author Kernohan, Ashleigh
Robinson, Tomos
Vale, Luke
author_facet Kernohan, Ashleigh
Robinson, Tomos
Vale, Luke
author_sort Kernohan, Ashleigh
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Cochrane systematic reviews have established methods for identifying and critically appraising empirical evidence in health. In addition to evidence regarding the clinical effectiveness of interventions, the resource implications of such interventions can have a huge impact on a decision maker’s ability to adopt and implement them. In this paper, we present examples of the three approaches to include economic evidence in Cochrane reviews. METHODS: The Cochrane Handbook presents three different methods of integrating economic evidence into reviews: the Brief Economic Commentary (BEC), the Integrated Full Systematic Review of Economic Evaluations (IFSREE) and using an Economic Decision Model. Using the examples from three different systematic reviews in the field of brain cancer, we utilised each method to address three different research questions. A BEC was utilised in a review that evaluates the long-term side effects of radiotherapy (with or without chemotherapy). An IFSREE was utilised in a review comparing different treatment strategies for newly diagnosed glioblastoma in the elderly. Finally, an economic model was included in a review assessing diagnostic test accuracy for tests of codeletion of chromosomal arms in people with glioma. RESULTS: The BEC mirrored the results of the main review and found a paucity of quality evidence with regard to the side effects of radiotherapy in those with glioma. The IFSREE identified a single economic evaluation regarding glioblastoma in the elderly, but this study had a number of methodological issues. The economic model identified a number of potentially cost-effective strategies for tests for codeletion of chromosomal arms 1p and 19q in people with glioma. CONCLUSIONS: There are strengths and limitations of each approach for integrating economic evidence in Cochrane systematic reviews. The type of research question, resources available and study timeline should be considered when choosing which approach to use when integrating economic evidence.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10239097
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-102390972023-06-04 Incorporating economic methods into Cochrane systematic reviews: case studies in brain tumour research Kernohan, Ashleigh Robinson, Tomos Vale, Luke Syst Rev Methodology BACKGROUND: Cochrane systematic reviews have established methods for identifying and critically appraising empirical evidence in health. In addition to evidence regarding the clinical effectiveness of interventions, the resource implications of such interventions can have a huge impact on a decision maker’s ability to adopt and implement them. In this paper, we present examples of the three approaches to include economic evidence in Cochrane reviews. METHODS: The Cochrane Handbook presents three different methods of integrating economic evidence into reviews: the Brief Economic Commentary (BEC), the Integrated Full Systematic Review of Economic Evaluations (IFSREE) and using an Economic Decision Model. Using the examples from three different systematic reviews in the field of brain cancer, we utilised each method to address three different research questions. A BEC was utilised in a review that evaluates the long-term side effects of radiotherapy (with or without chemotherapy). An IFSREE was utilised in a review comparing different treatment strategies for newly diagnosed glioblastoma in the elderly. Finally, an economic model was included in a review assessing diagnostic test accuracy for tests of codeletion of chromosomal arms in people with glioma. RESULTS: The BEC mirrored the results of the main review and found a paucity of quality evidence with regard to the side effects of radiotherapy in those with glioma. The IFSREE identified a single economic evaluation regarding glioblastoma in the elderly, but this study had a number of methodological issues. The economic model identified a number of potentially cost-effective strategies for tests for codeletion of chromosomal arms 1p and 19q in people with glioma. CONCLUSIONS: There are strengths and limitations of each approach for integrating economic evidence in Cochrane systematic reviews. The type of research question, resources available and study timeline should be considered when choosing which approach to use when integrating economic evidence. BioMed Central 2023-06-02 /pmc/articles/PMC10239097/ /pubmed/37268981 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13643-023-02254-w Text en © The Author(s) 2023 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Methodology
Kernohan, Ashleigh
Robinson, Tomos
Vale, Luke
Incorporating economic methods into Cochrane systematic reviews: case studies in brain tumour research
title Incorporating economic methods into Cochrane systematic reviews: case studies in brain tumour research
title_full Incorporating economic methods into Cochrane systematic reviews: case studies in brain tumour research
title_fullStr Incorporating economic methods into Cochrane systematic reviews: case studies in brain tumour research
title_full_unstemmed Incorporating economic methods into Cochrane systematic reviews: case studies in brain tumour research
title_short Incorporating economic methods into Cochrane systematic reviews: case studies in brain tumour research
title_sort incorporating economic methods into cochrane systematic reviews: case studies in brain tumour research
topic Methodology
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10239097/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37268981
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13643-023-02254-w
work_keys_str_mv AT kernohanashleigh incorporatingeconomicmethodsintocochranesystematicreviewscasestudiesinbraintumourresearch
AT robinsontomos incorporatingeconomicmethodsintocochranesystematicreviewscasestudiesinbraintumourresearch
AT valeluke incorporatingeconomicmethodsintocochranesystematicreviewscasestudiesinbraintumourresearch