IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/pharme/v38y2020i3d10.1007_s40273-019-00878-2.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Challenges of Systematic Reviews of Economic Evaluations: A Review of Recent Reviews and an Obesity Case Study

Author

Listed:
  • Elisabet Jacobsen

    (University of Aberdeen)

  • Dwayne Boyers

    (University of Aberdeen)

  • Alison Avenell

    (University of Aberdeen)

Abstract

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Elisabet Jacobsen & Dwayne Boyers & Alison Avenell, 2020. "Challenges of Systematic Reviews of Economic Evaluations: A Review of Recent Reviews and an Obesity Case Study," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 38(3), pages 259-267, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:pharme:v:38:y:2020:i:3:d:10.1007_s40273-019-00878-2
    DOI: 10.1007/s40273-019-00878-2
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40273-019-00878-2
    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/s40273-019-00878-2?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. Stephanie Boulenger & John Nixon & Michael Drummond & Philippe Ulmann & Stephen Rice & Gerard Pouvourville, 2005. "Can economic evaluations be made more transferable?," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 6(4), pages 334-346, December.
    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. Rob Anderson, 2010. "Systematic reviews of economic evaluations: utility or futility?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 19(3), pages 350-364, March.
    4. John Nixon & Stephen Rice & Michael Drummond & Stephanie Boulenger & Philippe Ulmann & Gerard Pouvourville, 2009. "Guidelines for completing the EURONHEED transferability information checklists," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 10(2), pages 157-165, May.
    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. Fernando Antoñanzas & Roberto Rodríguez-Ibeas & Carmelo Juárez-Castelló, 2012. "Coping with uncertainty on health decisions: assessing new solutions," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 13(4), pages 375-378, August.
    2. Federico Augustovski & Cynthia Iglesias & Andrea Manca & Michael Drummond & Adolfo Rubinstein & Sebastián Martií, 2009. "Barriers to Generalizability of Health Economic Evaluations in Latin America and the Caribbean Region," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 27(11), pages 919-929, November.
    3. Valentin Brodszky & Zsuzsanna Beretzky & Petra Baji & Fanni Rencz & Márta Péntek & Alexandru Rotar & Konstantin Tachkov & Susanne Mayer & Judit Simon & Maciej Niewada & Rok Hren & László Gulácsi, 2019. "Cost-of-illness studies in nine Central and Eastern European countries," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 20(1), pages 155-172, June.
    4. Tim Mathes & Maren Walgenbach & Sunya-Lee Antoine & Dawid Pieper & Michaela Eikermann, 2014. "Methods for Systematic Reviews of Health Economic Evaluations," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 34(7), pages 826-840, October.
    5. Edward Burn & Alexander D. Liddle & Thomas W. Hamilton & Sunil Pai & Hemant G. Pandit & David W. Murray & Rafael Pinedo-Villanueva, 2017. "Choosing Between Unicompartmental and Total Knee Replacement: What Can Economic Evaluations Tell Us? A Systematic Review," PharmacoEconomics - Open, Springer, vol. 1(4), pages 241-253, December.
    6. Pepijn Vemer & Maureen Rutten-van Mölken, 2011. "Largely ignored: the impact of the threshold value for a QALY on the importance of a transferability factor," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 12(5), pages 397-404, October.
    7. Giovanna Elisa Calabrò & Sara Boccalini & Donatella Panatto & Caterina Rizzo & Maria Luisa Di Pietro & Fasika Molla Abreha & Marco Ajelli & Daniela Amicizia & Angela Bechini & Irene Giacchetta & Piero, 2022. "The New Quadrivalent Adjuvanted Influenza Vaccine for the Italian Elderly: A Health Technology Assessment," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(7), pages 1-14, March.
    8. Dyfrig Hughes & Joanna Charles & Dalia Dawoud & Rhiannon Tudor Edwards & Emily Holmes & Carys Jones & Paul Parham & Catrin Plumpton & Colin Ridyard & Huw Lloyd-Williams & Eifiona Wood & Seow Tien Yeo, 2016. "Conducting Economic Evaluations Alongside Randomised Trials: Current Methodological Issues and Novel Approaches," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 34(5), pages 447-461, May.
    9. Jesse Elliott & Bláthnaid McCoy & Tammy Clifford & George A. Wells & Doug Coyle, 2018. "Economic Evaluation of Stiripentol for Dravet Syndrome: A Cost-Utility Analysis," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 36(10), pages 1253-1261, October.
    10. 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.
    11. Rosanna Tarricone & Giuditta Callea & Marko Ogorevc & Valentina Prevolnik Rupel, 2017. "Improving the Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Medical Devices," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 26(S1), pages 70-92, February.
    12. Axel C Mühlbacher & Andrew Sadler, 2021. "Comment on the paper "Cost-effectiveness of sofosbuvir in hepatitis C genotype 1 infection in Germany: A reanalysis of published results"," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(2), pages 1-4, February.
    13. Lisa Masucci & Jaclyn Beca & Mona Sabharwal & Jeffrey S. Hoch, 2017. "Methodological Issues in Economic Evaluations Submitted to the Pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review (pCODR)," PharmacoEconomics - Open, Springer, vol. 1(4), pages 255-263, December.
    14. Nadia YAKHELEF & Martine AUDIBERT & Bruno PEIRERA & Antoine MONS & Emmanuel CHABERT, 2015. "Cost-utility Analysis of Vertebroplasty versus Thoracolumbosacral Orthosis in the Treatment of Traumatic Vertebral Fractures," Working Papers 201534, CERDI.
    15. James Buchanan & Sarah Wordsworth & Ruth Clifford & Pauline Robbe & Jenny C. Taylor & Anna Schuh & Samantha J. L. Knight, 2017. "Using Genomic Information to Guide Ibrutinib Treatment Decisions in Chronic Lymphocytic Leukaemia: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 35(8), pages 845-858, August.
    16. Clarke, Lorcan, 2020. "An introduction to economic studies, health emergencies, and COVID-19," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 105051, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    17. Najmiatul Fitria & Antoinette D. I. Asselt & Maarten J. Postma, 2019. "Cost-effectiveness of controlling gestational diabetes mellitus: a systematic review," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 20(3), pages 407-417, April.
    18. 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.
    19. Thomas Grochtdreis & Hans-Helmut König & Alexander Dobruschkin & Gunhild von Amsberg & Judith Dams, 2018. "Cost-effectiveness analyses and cost analyses in castration-resistant prostate cancer: A systematic review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(12), pages 1-25, December.
    20. Wendy Hens & Dirk Vissers & Nick Verhaeghe & Jan Gielen & Luc Van Gaal & Jan Taeymans, 2021. "Unsupervised Exercise Training Was Not Found to Improve the Metabolic Health or Phenotype over a 6-Month Dietary Intervention: A Randomised Controlled Trial with an Embedded Economic Analysis," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(15), pages 1-13, July.

    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:38:y:2020:i:3:d:10.1007_s40273-019-00878-2. 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.