Chapter 6: Systematic reviews of economic evidence

Gomersall, Judith Streak; Jadotte, Yuri T.; Xue, Yifan; Lockwood, S.; Riddle, Dru; Preda, Alin

doi:10.46658/jbirm-14-01

Cited by 6 publications

(25 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Eligible studies were critically appraised by two independent reviewers (YZ and MTP) at the study level for methodological quality following the detailed checklist for assessing economic evaluation from Drummond et al (19) and summarized using standardized critical appraisal instruments from the Joanna Briggs Institute for Economic Evaluation (15). Any disagreements that arose between the reviewers were resolved through discussion or with all study members.…”

Section: Assessment Of Methodological Qualitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Economic evaluation and costs of remote patient monitoring for cardiovascular disease in the United States: a systematic review

Zhang

Peña

Fletcher

et al. 2023

Int J Technol Assess Health Care

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Remote patient monitoring (RPM) has emerged as a viable and valuable care delivery method to improve chronic disease management. In light of the high prevalence and substantial economic burden of cardiovascular disease (CVD), this systematic review examines the cost and cost-effectiveness of using RPM to manage CVD in the United States. Methods We systematically searched databases to identify potentially relevant research. Findings were synthesized for cost and cost-effectiveness by economic study type with consideration of study perspective, intervention, clinical outcome, and time horizon. The methodological quality was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute Checklist for Economic Evaluations. Results Thirteen articles with fourteen studies published between 2011 and 2021 were included in the final review. Studies from the provider perspective with a narrow scope of cost components identified higher costs and similar effectiveness for the RPM group relative to the usual care group. However, studies from payer and healthcare sector perspectives indicate better clinical effectiveness of RPM relative to usual care, with two cost-utility analysis studies suggesting that RPM relative to usual care is a cost-effective tool for CVD management even at the conservative $50,000 per Quality-Adjusted Life-Year threshold. Additionally, all model-based studies revealed that RPM is cost-effective in the long run. Conclusions Full economic evaluations identified RPM as a potentially cost-effective tool, particularly for long-term CVD management. In addition to the current literature, rigorous economic analysis with a broader perspective is needed in evaluating the value and economic sustainability of RPM.

show abstract

Section: Assessment Of Methodological Qualitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Economic evaluation and costs of remote patient monitoring for cardiovascular disease in the United States: a systematic review

Zhang

Peña

Fletcher

et al. 2023

Int J Technol Assess Health Care

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Empirical economic evaluations involve data collection and synthesis of existing evidence using the framework of a systematic review, while economic decision modeling involves the data collection and synthesis of existing evidence in order to generate a new economic evaluation using the framework of a decision model [3] . For either type of economic evaluation, the economic outcomes are expressed using a variety of measures, such as cost effectiveness, cost utility, cost benefit and incremental cost effectiveness ratios (which measure relative efficiency and are expressed as incremental gains in clinical effectiveness, health utility values or monetary valuations) [3] , [4] , [5] .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Systematic reviews of empirical economic studies involve several stages of research which are similar to systematic reviews of clinical effectiveness: defining the review question and inclusion criteria for study eligibility; identifying and collecting data; appraising methodological quality; analyzing collected data and undertaking meta-analysis (where appropriate); and summarizing and presenting results [4 , 5] . On the other hand, economic decision modelling involves computing the expected costs and outcomes of alternative interventions, based on a synthesis of evidence for the probabilities, costs and outcomes associated with each event in the pathway flow of the intervention [3] .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Given the current lack of quantitative synthesis methods, systematic reviews of economic studies have been restricted to methods of using descriptive narratives (via summaries or tables) [4] or plotting the magnitude and direction of cost and effectiveness using the CE-plane [7] , or applying visual summaries in a hierarchical decision matrix [1 , 5] . Here, we propose methods to extend the hierarchical decision matrix in order to enhance its use and address some of its limitations.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The hierarchical decision matrix (also known as dominance ranking framework) [1 , 5] enables a visual summary of various economic studies that have different economic outcome measures (e.g. cost-effectiveness, cost-utility, cost-benefit), which would otherwise not be possible in a quantitative meta-analysis approach [8] .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Extending the hierarchical decision matrix to incorporate a dominance ranking score for economic systematic reviews

Stephenson

Lockwood

2020

MethodsX

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

As the base of clinical evidence grows, it is increasingly common to conduct economic evaluations in addition to clinical evaluations of effectiveness in order to inform health policies. For economic systematic reviews there is currently no agreed-upon quantitative method to obtain a pooled economic effect size. With no suitable quantitative method available, the hierarchical decision matrix stands out as a tool that enables a visual summary of different types of economic studies, but there are limitations with the hierarchical decision matrix. We extended the hierarchical decision matrix with a weighted scoring system (termed dominance ranking score) to allow for useful information of a study design to be incorporated. The scoring system of the dominance ranking score incorporates weighting factors that are based on sample size and effect size of a study. The dominance ranking score enables a more differentiating analysis of dominance levels. For systematic reviews that include partial economic studies, both the hierarchical decision matrix and the dominance ranking score assist to indicate the level of economic potential for a particular intervention, which facilitates the conduct of subsequent full economic studies.

show abstract

Cost of remote patient monitoring for cardiovascular disease: a systematic review protocol

Zhang

Peña

Fletcher

et al. 2022

JBI Evidence Synthesis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective:This review aims to evaluate the costs and cost-effectiveness of remote patient monitoring for cardiovascular disease in the United States.Introduction:Cardiovascular disease is a leading public health concern in the United States, resulting in a substantial economic burden. Remote patient monitoring has emerged as a viable and valuable care delivery method to improve cardiovascular disease management at home. However, there is limited systematic research of the cost and cost-effectiveness of using remote patient monitoring to manage the disease.Inclusion criteria:This review will consider all studies evaluating the cost of remote patient monitoring for cardiovascular disease management in the United States. The population of interest includes all individuals with various types of chronic cardiovascular disease in the United States.Methods:The search strategy will locate both published and unpublished studies. Systematic searches will be completed in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, CINAHL, Scopus, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, ClinicalTrials.gov, National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database, and the Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry. Two reviewers will independently screen titles and abstracts, followed by a full-text review against the inclusion criteria. Disagreements will be resolved through discussion between all study members. The JBI checklist for economic evaluations will be utilized to evaluate the methodological quality of studies. Data will be extracted using a modified version of the JBI data extraction form for economic evaluations. Reviewers will summarize studies and cost-related metrics. The Dominance Ranking Matrix will be used to synthesize full economic evaluation.Systematic review registration number:PROSPERO CRD42021270621

show abstract

Chapter 6: Systematic reviews of economic evidence

Cited by 6 publications

References 0 publications

Economic evaluation and costs of remote patient monitoring for cardiovascular disease in the United States: a systematic review

Economic evaluation and costs of remote patient monitoring for cardiovascular disease in the United States: a systematic review

Extending the hierarchical decision matrix to incorporate a dominance ranking score for economic systematic reviews

Cost of remote patient monitoring for cardiovascular disease: a systematic review protocol

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About