Cargando…
Challenges of Systematic Reviews of Economic Evaluations: A Review of Recent Reviews and an Obesity Case Study
Decision makers increasingly require cost-effectiveness evidence to inform resource allocation and the need for systematic reviews of economic evaluations (SREEs) has grown accordingly. The objective of this article is to describe current practice and identify unique challenges in conducting and rep...
Autores principales: | , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Springer International Publishing
2020
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7045785/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31930461 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40273-019-00878-2 |
_version_ | 1783501845313880064 |
---|---|
author | Jacobsen, Elisabet Boyers, Dwayne Avenell, Alison |
author_facet | Jacobsen, Elisabet Boyers, Dwayne Avenell, Alison |
author_sort | Jacobsen, Elisabet |
collection | PubMed |
description | Decision makers increasingly require cost-effectiveness evidence to inform resource allocation and the need for systematic reviews of economic evaluations (SREEs) has grown accordingly. The objective of this article is to describe current practice and identify unique challenges in conducting and reporting SREEs. Current guideline documents for SREEs were consulted and summarised. A rapid review of English-language SREEs, using MEDLINE and EMBASE, published in 2017/2018, containing at least 20 studies was undertaken to describe current practice. Information on data extraction methods, quality assessment (QA) tools and reporting methods were narratively summarised. Lessons learned from a recently conducted SREE of weight loss interventions for severely obese adults were discussed. Sixty-three publications were included in the rapid review. Substantial heterogeneity in review methods, reporting standards and QA approaches was evident. Our recently conducted SREE on weight loss interventions identified scope to improve process efficiency, opportunity for more transparent and succinct reporting, and potential to improve consistency of QA. Practical solutions may include (1) using pre-piloted data extraction forms linked explicitly to results tables; (2) consistently reporting on key assumptions and sensitivity analyses that drive results; and (3) using checklists that include topic-specific items where relevant and allow reviewers to distinguish between reporting, justification and QA. The lack of a mutually agreed, standardised set of best practice guidelines has led to substantial heterogeneity in the conduct and reporting of SREEs. Future work is required to standardise the approach to conducting SREEs so that they can generate efficient, timely and relevant evidence to support decision-making. We suggest only data extracting information that will be reported, focusing discussion around the key drivers of cost-effectiveness, and improving consistency in QA by distinguishing between what is reported, justified by authors and deemed appropriate by the reviewer. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1007/s40273-019-00878-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7045785 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2020 |
publisher | Springer International Publishing |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-70457852020-03-10 Challenges of Systematic Reviews of Economic Evaluations: A Review of Recent Reviews and an Obesity Case Study Jacobsen, Elisabet Boyers, Dwayne Avenell, Alison Pharmacoeconomics Practical Application Decision makers increasingly require cost-effectiveness evidence to inform resource allocation and the need for systematic reviews of economic evaluations (SREEs) has grown accordingly. The objective of this article is to describe current practice and identify unique challenges in conducting and reporting SREEs. Current guideline documents for SREEs were consulted and summarised. A rapid review of English-language SREEs, using MEDLINE and EMBASE, published in 2017/2018, containing at least 20 studies was undertaken to describe current practice. Information on data extraction methods, quality assessment (QA) tools and reporting methods were narratively summarised. Lessons learned from a recently conducted SREE of weight loss interventions for severely obese adults were discussed. Sixty-three publications were included in the rapid review. Substantial heterogeneity in review methods, reporting standards and QA approaches was evident. Our recently conducted SREE on weight loss interventions identified scope to improve process efficiency, opportunity for more transparent and succinct reporting, and potential to improve consistency of QA. Practical solutions may include (1) using pre-piloted data extraction forms linked explicitly to results tables; (2) consistently reporting on key assumptions and sensitivity analyses that drive results; and (3) using checklists that include topic-specific items where relevant and allow reviewers to distinguish between reporting, justification and QA. The lack of a mutually agreed, standardised set of best practice guidelines has led to substantial heterogeneity in the conduct and reporting of SREEs. Future work is required to standardise the approach to conducting SREEs so that they can generate efficient, timely and relevant evidence to support decision-making. We suggest only data extracting information that will be reported, focusing discussion around the key drivers of cost-effectiveness, and improving consistency in QA by distinguishing between what is reported, justified by authors and deemed appropriate by the reviewer. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1007/s40273-019-00878-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. Springer International Publishing 2020-01-13 2020 /pmc/articles/PMC7045785/ /pubmed/31930461 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40273-019-00878-2 Text en © The Author(s) 2020 Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial 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-nc/4.0/. |
spellingShingle | Practical Application Jacobsen, Elisabet Boyers, Dwayne Avenell, Alison Challenges of Systematic Reviews of Economic Evaluations: A Review of Recent Reviews and an Obesity Case Study |
title | Challenges of Systematic Reviews of Economic Evaluations: A Review of Recent Reviews and an Obesity Case Study |
title_full | Challenges of Systematic Reviews of Economic Evaluations: A Review of Recent Reviews and an Obesity Case Study |
title_fullStr | Challenges of Systematic Reviews of Economic Evaluations: A Review of Recent Reviews and an Obesity Case Study |
title_full_unstemmed | Challenges of Systematic Reviews of Economic Evaluations: A Review of Recent Reviews and an Obesity Case Study |
title_short | Challenges of Systematic Reviews of Economic Evaluations: A Review of Recent Reviews and an Obesity Case Study |
title_sort | challenges of systematic reviews of economic evaluations: a review of recent reviews and an obesity case study |
topic | Practical Application |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7045785/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31930461 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40273-019-00878-2 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT jacobsenelisabet challengesofsystematicreviewsofeconomicevaluationsareviewofrecentreviewsandanobesitycasestudy AT boyersdwayne challengesofsystematicreviewsofeconomicevaluationsareviewofrecentreviewsandanobesitycasestudy AT avenellalison challengesofsystematicreviewsofeconomicevaluationsareviewofrecentreviewsandanobesitycasestudy |