Critical Appraisal of Systematic Reviews With Costs and Cost-Effectiveness Outcomes: An ISPOR Good Practices Task Force Report

Mandrik, Olena; Severens, Johan L.; Bardach, Ariel; Ghabri, Salah; Hamel, Candyce; Mathes, Tim; Vale, Luke; Wisløff, Torbjørn; Goldhaber-Fiebert, Jeremy D.

doi:10.1016/j.jval.2021.01.002

Cited by 70 publications

(58 citation statements)

References 58 publications

(79 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Results were limited to articles published in English from January 1, 2020. Supplemental desk searching of the following sources was also performed: gray literature, in accordance with the ISPOR task force guidance 18 ; HTA reports, as recommended by Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health 19 ; and known model repositories. 20 , 21 The search protocol was registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Diagnostics and Treatments of COVID-19: A Living Systematic Review of Economic Evaluations

Elvidge

Summerfield²,

Nicholls

et al. 2022

Value in Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Diagnostics and Treatments of COVID-19: A Living Systematic Review of Economic Evaluations

Elvidge

Summerfield²,

Nicholls

et al. 2022

Value in Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Our study was restricted to the published literature and thus is likely impacted by publication bias towards those interventions that were shown to be cost-effective; programmes that were not deemed cost-effective may not have been published. A recent Task Force Report from the Professional Society for Health Economics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) suggests benchmarking approaches, such as reviewing trial protocols, to better explore the potential for publication bias but also notes the need to develop new approaches to assess publication bias [ 57 ]. Further, more recent economic evaluations of screening interventions, particularly for novel diagnostic tests such as Xpert®, may have been more likely to demonstrate cost effectiveness than earlier studies due to consistently decreasing test costs.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Tuberculosis screening costs and cost-effectiveness in high-risk groups: a systematic review

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Systematic screening for active tuberculosis (TB) is a strategy which requires the health system to seek out individuals, rather than waiting for individuals to self-present with symptoms (i.e., passive case finding). Our review aimed to summarize the current economic evidence and understand the costs and cost-effectiveness of systematic screening approaches among high-risk groups and settings. Methods We conducted a systematic review on economic evaluations of screening for TB disease targeting persons with clinical and/or structural risk factors, such as persons living with HIV (PLHIV) or persons experiencing homelessness. We searched three databases for studies published between January 1, 2010 and February 1, 2020. Studies were included if they reported cost and a key outcome measure. Owing to considerable heterogeneity in settings and type of screening strategy, we synthesized data descriptively. Results A total of 27 articles were included in our review; 19/27 (70%) took place in high TB burden countries. Seventeen studies took place among persons with clinical risk factors, including 14 among PLHIV, while 13 studies were among persons with structural risk factors. Nine studies reported incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) ranging from US$51 to $1980 per disability-adjusted life year (DALY) averted. Screening was most cost-effective among PLHIV. Among persons with clinical and structural risk factors there was limited evidence, but screening was generally not shown to be cost-effective. Conclusions Studies showed that screening is most likely to be cost-effective in a high TB prevalence population. Our review highlights that to reach the “missing millions” TB programmes should focus on simple, cheaper initial screening tools (i.e., symptom screen and CXR) followed by molecular diagnostic tools (i.e., Xpert®) among the highest risk groups in the local setting (i.e., PLHIV, urban slums). Programmatic costs greatly impact cost-effectiveness thus future research should provide both fixed and variable costs of screening interventions to improve comparability.

show abstract

“…regarding methodological aspects [ 5 ], geographical settings or time periods [ 2 , 6 , 7 ]. Therefore, considering transferability of the results from included P-HEs is important when conducting a SR-HE [ 8 ]. Several tools for assessing transferability of P-HEs have been developed and suggested [ 6 , 9 – 11 ], but there is no widely agreed approach [ 12 , 13 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessing transferability in systematic reviews of health economic evaluations – a review of methodological guidance

Weise

Büchter

Pieper

et al. 2022

BMC Med Res Methodol

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Critical Appraisal of Systematic Reviews With Costs and Cost-Effectiveness Outcomes: An ISPOR Good Practices Task Force Report

Cited by 70 publications

References 58 publications

Diagnostics and Treatments of COVID-19: A Living Systematic Review of Economic Evaluations

Diagnostics and Treatments of COVID-19: A Living Systematic Review of Economic Evaluations

Tuberculosis screening costs and cost-effectiveness in high-risk groups: a systematic review

Assessing transferability in systematic reviews of health economic evaluations – a review of methodological guidance

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About