IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/pharme/v35y2017i10d10.1007_s40273-017-0531-3.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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

Author

Listed:
  • Mohamed El Alili

    (VU University Amsterdam, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute)

  • Johanna M. Dongen

    (VU University Amsterdam, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute)

  • Judith A. F. Huirne

    (VU University Medical Centre)

  • Maurits W. Tulder

    (VU University Amsterdam, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute)

  • Judith E. Bosmans

    (VU University Amsterdam, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute)

Abstract

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Mohamed El Alili & Johanna M. Dongen & Judith A. F. Huirne & Maurits W. Tulder & Judith E. Bosmans, 2017. "Reporting and Analysis of Trial-Based Cost-Effectiveness Evaluations in Obstetrics and Gynaecology," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 35(10), pages 1007-1033, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:pharme:v:35:y:2017:i:10:d:10.1007_s40273-017-0531-3
    DOI: 10.1007/s40273-017-0531-3
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40273-017-0531-3
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s40273-017-0531-3?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Andrew Briggs & Mark Sculpher & Martin Buxton, 1994. "Uncertainty in the economic evaluation of health care technologies: The role of sensitivity analysis," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 3(2), pages 95-104, March.
    2. Don Husereau & Michael Drummond & Stavros Petrou & Chris Carswell & David Moher & Dan Greenberg & Federico Augustovski & Andrew Briggs & Josephine Mauskopf & Elizabeth Loder, 2013. "Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) Statement," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 31(5), pages 361-367, May.
    3. Elisabeth Fenwick & Bernie J. O'Brien & Andrew Briggs, 2004. "Cost‐effectiveness acceptability curves – facts, fallacies and frequently asked questions," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 13(5), pages 405-415, May.
    4. Drummond, Michael F. & Sculpher, Mark J. & Claxton, Karl & Stoddart, Greg L. & Torrance, George W., 2015. "Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, edition 4, number 9780199665884.
    5. Jan B. Oostenbrink & Maiwenn J. Al, 2005. "The analysis of incomplete cost data due to dropout," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(8), pages 763-776, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Saha, Sanjib & Gerdtham, Ulf-G. & Toresson, Håkan & Minthon, Lennart & Jarl, Johan, 2018. "Economic Evaluation of Interventions for Screening of Dementia," Working Papers 2018:20, Lund University, Department of Economics.
    2. Qi Cao & Erik Buskens & Hans L. Hillege & Tiny Jaarsma & Maarten Postma & Douwe Postmus, 2019. "Stratified treatment recommendation or one-size-fits-all? A health economic insight based on graphical exploration," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 20(3), pages 475-482, April.
    3. Saha, Sanjib & Gerdtham, Ulf-G. & Toresson, Håkan & Minthon, Lennart & Jarl, Johan, 2018. "Economic Evaluation of Nonpharmacological Interventions for Dementia Patients and their Caregivers - A Systematic Literature Review," Working Papers 2018:10, Lund University, Department of Economics.
    4. B Ekman & H Nero & L S Lohmander & L E Dahlberg, 2020. "Costing analysis of a digital first-line treatment platform for patients with knee and hip osteoarthritis in Sweden," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(8), pages 1-12, August.
    5. David Brain & Ruth Tulleners & Xing Lee & Qinglu Cheng & Nicholas Graves & Rosana Pacella, 2019. "Cost-effectiveness analysis of an innovative model of care for chronic wounds patients," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(3), pages 1-13, March.
    6. Paola Salari & Thomas Fürst & Stefanie Knopp & Jürg Utzinger & Fabrizio Tediosi, 2020. "Cost of interventions to control schistosomiasis: A systematic review of the literature," PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(3), pages 1-23, March.
    7. Susanne Mayer & Noemi Kiss & Agata Łaszewska & Judit Simon, 2017. "Costing evidence for health care decision-making in Austria: A systematic review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(8), pages 1-18, August.
    8. Jaclyn Beca & Don Husereau & Kelvin K. W. Chan & Neil Hawkins & Jeffrey S. Hoch, 2018. "Oncology Modeling for Fun and Profit! Key Steps for Busy Analysts in Health Technology Assessment," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 36(1), pages 7-15, January.
    9. Fuxiao Li & Xiang Li & Chuanhai Guo & Ruiping Xu & Fenglei Li & Yaqi Pan & Mengfei Liu & Zhen Liu & Chao Shi & Hui Wang & Minmin Wang & Hongrui Tian & Fangfang Liu & Ying Liu & Jingjing Li & Hong Cai , 2019. "Estimation of Cost for Endoscopic Screening for Esophageal Cancer in a High-Risk Population in Rural China: Results from a Population-Level Randomized Controlled Trial," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 37(6), pages 819-827, June.
    10. Simon Deeming & Kim Edmunds & Alice Knight & Andrew Searles & Anthony P. Shakeshaft & Christopher M. Doran, 2022. "A Benefit-Cost Analysis of BackTrack, a Multi-Component, Community-Based Intervention for High-Risk Young People in a Rural Australian Setting," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(16), pages 1-12, August.
    11. Matthew Franklin & James Lomas & Simon Walker & Tracey Young, 2019. "An Educational Review About Using Cost Data for the Purpose of Cost-Effectiveness Analysis," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 37(5), pages 631-643, May.
    12. El-Banna, Asmaa & Petrou, Stavros & Yiu, Hei Hang Edmund & Daher, Shahd & Forrester, Donald & Scourfield, Jonathan & Wilkins, David & Evans, Rhiannon & Turley, Ruth & Wallace, Sarah, 2021. "Systematic review of economic evaluations of children’s social care interventions," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 121(C).
    13. Sanjib Saha & Birgitta Grahn & Ulf-G. Gerdtham & Kjerstin Stigmar & Sara Holmberg & Johan Jarl, 2019. "Structured physiotherapy including a work place intervention for patients with neck and/or back pain in primary care: an economic evaluation," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 20(2), pages 317-327, March.
    14. Francisco Jódar-Sánchez & Amaia Malet-Larrea & José Martín & Leticia García-Mochón & M. López del Amo & Fernando Martínez-Martínez & Miguel Gastelurrutia-Garralda & Victoria García-Cárdenas & Daniel S, 2015. "Cost-Utility Analysis of a Medication Review with Follow-Up Service for Older Adults with Polypharmacy in Community Pharmacies in Spain: The conSIGUE Program," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 33(6), pages 599-610, June.
    15. Cochrane, M. & Watson, P.M. & Timpson, H. & Haycox, A. & Collins, B. & Jones, L. & Martin, A. & Graves, L.E.F., 2019. "Systematic review of the methods used in economic evaluations of targeted physical activity and sedentary behaviour interventions," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 232(C), pages 156-167.
    16. Helen Weatherly & Rita Faria & Bernard Van den Berg & Mark Sculpher & Peter O’Neill & Kay Nolan & Julie Glanville & Jaana Isojarvi & Erin Baragula & Mary Edwards, 2017. "Scoping review on social care economic evaluation methods," Working Papers 150cherp, Centre for Health Economics, University of York.
    17. Don Husereau & Michael Drummond & Federico Augustovski & Esther Bekker-Grob & Andrew H. Briggs & Chris Carswell & Lisa Caulley & Nathorn Chaiyakunapruk & Dan Greenberg & Elizabeth Loder & Josephine Ma, 2022. "Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards 2022 (CHEERS 2022) Statement: Updated Reporting Guidance for Health Economic Evaluations," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 20(2), pages 213-221, March.
    18. Kim Edmunds & Penny Reeves & Paul Scuffham & Daniel A. Galvão & Robert U. Newton & Mark Jones & Nigel Spry & Dennis R. Taaffe & David Joseph & Suzanne K. Chambers & Haitham Tuffaha, 2020. "Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Supervised Exercise Training in Men with Prostate Cancer Previously Treated with Radiation Therapy and Androgen-Deprivation Therapy," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 18(5), pages 727-737, October.
    19. Salah Ghabri & Françoise F. Hamers & Jean Michel Josselin, 2016. "Exploring Uncertainty in Economic Evaluations of Drugs and Medical Devices: Lessons from the First Review of Manufacturers’ Submissions to the French National Authority for Health," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 34(6), pages 617-624, June.
    20. Andrew Briggs & Rachel Nugent, 2016. "Editorial," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 25(S1), pages 6-8, February.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:pharme:v:35:y:2017:i:10:d:10.1007_s40273-017-0531-3. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.