Cargando…
Assessing transferability in systematic reviews of health economic evaluations – a review of methodological guidance
OBJECTIVE: For assessing cost-effectiveness, Health Technology Assessment (HTA) organisations may use primary economic evaluations (P-HEs) or Systematic Reviews of Health Economic evaluations (SR-HEs). A prerequisite for meaningful results of SR-HEs is that the results from existing P-HEs are transf...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8858549/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35184733 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12874-022-01536-6 |
_version_ | 1784654265025822720 |
---|---|
author | Weise, Alina Büchter, Roland Brian Pieper, Dawid Mathes, Tim |
author_facet | Weise, Alina Büchter, Roland Brian Pieper, Dawid Mathes, Tim |
author_sort | Weise, Alina |
collection | PubMed |
description | OBJECTIVE: For assessing cost-effectiveness, Health Technology Assessment (HTA) organisations may use primary economic evaluations (P-HEs) or Systematic Reviews of Health Economic evaluations (SR-HEs). A prerequisite for meaningful results of SR-HEs is that the results from existing P-HEs are transferable to the decision context (e.g, HTA jurisdiction). A particularly pertinent issue is the high variability of costs and resource needs across jurisdictions. Our objective was to review the methods documents of HTA organisations and compare their recommendations on considering transferability in SR-HE. METHODS: We systematically hand searched the webpages of 158 HTA organisations for relevant methods documents from 8th January to 31st March 2019. Two independent reviewers performed searches and selected documents according to pre-defined criteria. One reviewer extracted data in standardised and piloted tables and a second reviewer checked them for accuracy. We synthesised data using tabulations and in a narrative way. RESULTS: We identified 155 potentially relevant documents from 63 HTA organisations. Of these, 7 were included in the synthesis. The included organisations have different aims when preparing a SR-HE (e.g. to determine the need for conducting their own P-HE). The recommendations vary regarding the underlying terminology (e.g. transferability/generalisability), the assessment approaches (e.g. structure), the assessment criteria and the integration in the review process. CONCLUSION: Only few HTA organisations address the assessment of transferability in their methodological recommendations for SR-HEs. Transferability considerations are related to different purposes. The assessment concepts and criteria are heterogeneous. Developing standards to consider transferability in SR-HEs is desirable. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12874-022-01536-6. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8858549 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2022 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-88585492022-02-23 Assessing transferability in systematic reviews of health economic evaluations – a review of methodological guidance Weise, Alina Büchter, Roland Brian Pieper, Dawid Mathes, Tim BMC Med Res Methodol Research OBJECTIVE: For assessing cost-effectiveness, Health Technology Assessment (HTA) organisations may use primary economic evaluations (P-HEs) or Systematic Reviews of Health Economic evaluations (SR-HEs). A prerequisite for meaningful results of SR-HEs is that the results from existing P-HEs are transferable to the decision context (e.g, HTA jurisdiction). A particularly pertinent issue is the high variability of costs and resource needs across jurisdictions. Our objective was to review the methods documents of HTA organisations and compare their recommendations on considering transferability in SR-HE. METHODS: We systematically hand searched the webpages of 158 HTA organisations for relevant methods documents from 8th January to 31st March 2019. Two independent reviewers performed searches and selected documents according to pre-defined criteria. One reviewer extracted data in standardised and piloted tables and a second reviewer checked them for accuracy. We synthesised data using tabulations and in a narrative way. RESULTS: We identified 155 potentially relevant documents from 63 HTA organisations. Of these, 7 were included in the synthesis. The included organisations have different aims when preparing a SR-HE (e.g. to determine the need for conducting their own P-HE). The recommendations vary regarding the underlying terminology (e.g. transferability/generalisability), the assessment approaches (e.g. structure), the assessment criteria and the integration in the review process. CONCLUSION: Only few HTA organisations address the assessment of transferability in their methodological recommendations for SR-HEs. Transferability considerations are related to different purposes. The assessment concepts and criteria are heterogeneous. Developing standards to consider transferability in SR-HEs is desirable. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12874-022-01536-6. BioMed Central 2022-02-20 /pmc/articles/PMC8858549/ /pubmed/35184733 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12874-022-01536-6 Text en © The Author(s) 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis 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 | Research Weise, Alina Büchter, Roland Brian Pieper, Dawid Mathes, Tim Assessing transferability in systematic reviews of health economic evaluations – a review of methodological guidance |
title | Assessing transferability in systematic reviews of health economic evaluations – a review of methodological guidance |
title_full | Assessing transferability in systematic reviews of health economic evaluations – a review of methodological guidance |
title_fullStr | Assessing transferability in systematic reviews of health economic evaluations – a review of methodological guidance |
title_full_unstemmed | Assessing transferability in systematic reviews of health economic evaluations – a review of methodological guidance |
title_short | Assessing transferability in systematic reviews of health economic evaluations – a review of methodological guidance |
title_sort | assessing transferability in systematic reviews of health economic evaluations – a review of methodological guidance |
topic | Research |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8858549/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35184733 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12874-022-01536-6 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT weisealina assessingtransferabilityinsystematicreviewsofhealtheconomicevaluationsareviewofmethodologicalguidance AT buchterrolandbrian assessingtransferabilityinsystematicreviewsofhealtheconomicevaluationsareviewofmethodologicalguidance AT pieperdawid assessingtransferabilityinsystematicreviewsofhealtheconomicevaluationsareviewofmethodologicalguidance AT mathestim assessingtransferabilityinsystematicreviewsofhealtheconomicevaluationsareviewofmethodologicalguidance |