Cargando…

Systematic Review of Health Economic Evaluations of Diagnostic Tests in Brazil: How accurate are the results?

The aim of this study is to identify and characterize the health economic evaluations (HEEs) of diagnostic tests conducted in Brazil, in terms of their adherence to international guidelines for reporting economic studies and specific questions in test accuracy reports. We systematically searched mul...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Oliveira, Maria Regina Fernandes, Leandro, Roseli, Decimoni, Tassia Cristina, Rozman, Luciana Martins, Novaes, Hillegonda Maria Dutilh, De Soárez, Patrícia Coelho
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Hospital das Clínicas da Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de São Paulo 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5577617/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28954010
http://dx.doi.org/10.6061/clinics/2017(08)08
_version_ 1783260376497913856
author Oliveira, Maria Regina Fernandes
Leandro, Roseli
Decimoni, Tassia Cristina
Rozman, Luciana Martins
Novaes, Hillegonda Maria Dutilh
De Soárez, Patrícia Coelho
author_facet Oliveira, Maria Regina Fernandes
Leandro, Roseli
Decimoni, Tassia Cristina
Rozman, Luciana Martins
Novaes, Hillegonda Maria Dutilh
De Soárez, Patrícia Coelho
author_sort Oliveira, Maria Regina Fernandes
collection PubMed
description The aim of this study is to identify and characterize the health economic evaluations (HEEs) of diagnostic tests conducted in Brazil, in terms of their adherence to international guidelines for reporting economic studies and specific questions in test accuracy reports. We systematically searched multiple databases, selecting partial and full HEEs of diagnostic tests, published between 1980 and 2013. Two independent reviewers screened articles for relevance and extracted the data. We performed a qualitative narrative synthesis. Forty-three articles were reviewed. The most frequently studied diagnostic tests were laboratory tests (37.2%) and imaging tests (32.6%). Most were non-invasive tests (51.2%) and were performed in the adult population (48.8%). The intended purposes of the technologies evaluated were mostly diagnostic (69.8%), but diagnosis and treatment and screening, diagnosis, and treatment accounted for 25.6% and 4.7%, respectively. Of the reviewed studies, 12.5% described the methods used to estimate the quantities of resources, 33.3% reported the discount rate applied, and 29.2% listed the type of sensitivity analysis performed. Among the 12 cost-effectiveness analyses, only two studies (17%) referred to the application of formal methods to check the quality of the accuracy studies that provided support for the economic model. The existing Brazilian literature on the HEEs of diagnostic tests exhibited reasonably good performance. However, the following points still require improvement: 1) the methods used to estimate resource quantities and unit costs, 2) the discount rate, 3) descriptions of sensitivity analysis methods, 4) reporting of conflicts of interest, 5) evaluations of the quality of the accuracy studies considered in the cost-effectiveness models, and 6) the incorporation of accuracy measures into sensitivity analyses.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5577617
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher Hospital das Clínicas da Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de São Paulo
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-55776172017-09-05 Systematic Review of Health Economic Evaluations of Diagnostic Tests in Brazil: How accurate are the results? Oliveira, Maria Regina Fernandes Leandro, Roseli Decimoni, Tassia Cristina Rozman, Luciana Martins Novaes, Hillegonda Maria Dutilh De Soárez, Patrícia Coelho Clinics (Sao Paulo) Review The aim of this study is to identify and characterize the health economic evaluations (HEEs) of diagnostic tests conducted in Brazil, in terms of their adherence to international guidelines for reporting economic studies and specific questions in test accuracy reports. We systematically searched multiple databases, selecting partial and full HEEs of diagnostic tests, published between 1980 and 2013. Two independent reviewers screened articles for relevance and extracted the data. We performed a qualitative narrative synthesis. Forty-three articles were reviewed. The most frequently studied diagnostic tests were laboratory tests (37.2%) and imaging tests (32.6%). Most were non-invasive tests (51.2%) and were performed in the adult population (48.8%). The intended purposes of the technologies evaluated were mostly diagnostic (69.8%), but diagnosis and treatment and screening, diagnosis, and treatment accounted for 25.6% and 4.7%, respectively. Of the reviewed studies, 12.5% described the methods used to estimate the quantities of resources, 33.3% reported the discount rate applied, and 29.2% listed the type of sensitivity analysis performed. Among the 12 cost-effectiveness analyses, only two studies (17%) referred to the application of formal methods to check the quality of the accuracy studies that provided support for the economic model. The existing Brazilian literature on the HEEs of diagnostic tests exhibited reasonably good performance. However, the following points still require improvement: 1) the methods used to estimate resource quantities and unit costs, 2) the discount rate, 3) descriptions of sensitivity analysis methods, 4) reporting of conflicts of interest, 5) evaluations of the quality of the accuracy studies considered in the cost-effectiveness models, and 6) the incorporation of accuracy measures into sensitivity analyses. Hospital das Clínicas da Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de São Paulo 2017-08 2017-08 /pmc/articles/PMC5577617/ /pubmed/28954010 http://dx.doi.org/10.6061/clinics/2017(08)08 Text en Copyright © 2017 CLINICS http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium or format, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Review
Oliveira, Maria Regina Fernandes
Leandro, Roseli
Decimoni, Tassia Cristina
Rozman, Luciana Martins
Novaes, Hillegonda Maria Dutilh
De Soárez, Patrícia Coelho
Systematic Review of Health Economic Evaluations of Diagnostic Tests in Brazil: How accurate are the results?
title Systematic Review of Health Economic Evaluations of Diagnostic Tests in Brazil: How accurate are the results?
title_full Systematic Review of Health Economic Evaluations of Diagnostic Tests in Brazil: How accurate are the results?
title_fullStr Systematic Review of Health Economic Evaluations of Diagnostic Tests in Brazil: How accurate are the results?
title_full_unstemmed Systematic Review of Health Economic Evaluations of Diagnostic Tests in Brazil: How accurate are the results?
title_short Systematic Review of Health Economic Evaluations of Diagnostic Tests in Brazil: How accurate are the results?
title_sort systematic review of health economic evaluations of diagnostic tests in brazil: how accurate are the results?
topic Review
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5577617/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28954010
http://dx.doi.org/10.6061/clinics/2017(08)08
work_keys_str_mv AT oliveiramariareginafernandes systematicreviewofhealtheconomicevaluationsofdiagnostictestsinbrazilhowaccuratearetheresults
AT leandroroseli systematicreviewofhealtheconomicevaluationsofdiagnostictestsinbrazilhowaccuratearetheresults
AT decimonitassiacristina systematicreviewofhealtheconomicevaluationsofdiagnostictestsinbrazilhowaccuratearetheresults
AT rozmanlucianamartins systematicreviewofhealtheconomicevaluationsofdiagnostictestsinbrazilhowaccuratearetheresults
AT novaeshillegondamariadutilh systematicreviewofhealtheconomicevaluationsofdiagnostictestsinbrazilhowaccuratearetheresults
AT desoarezpatriciacoelho systematicreviewofhealtheconomicevaluationsofdiagnostictestsinbrazilhowaccuratearetheresults