Current State of Health Economic Analyses for Low-Grade Glioma Management: A Systematic Review.
Cost-effectiveness
Glioma
Health economic analysis
Journal
World neurosurgery
ISSN: 1878-8769
Titre abrégé: World Neurosurg
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101528275
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
08 2021
08 2021
Historique:
received:
01
03
2021
revised:
23
05
2021
accepted:
24
05
2021
pubmed:
5
6
2021
medline:
18
9
2021
entrez:
4
6
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Health economic analyses help determine the value of a medical intervention by assessing the costs and outcomes associated with it. The objective of this study was to assess the level of evidence in economic evaluations for low-grade glioma (LGG) management. Following the PRISMA guidelines, we conducted a systematic review of English articles in Medline, Embase, The Central Registration Depository, EconPapers, and EconLit. The results were screened, and data were extracted by 2 independent reviewers for studies reporting economic evaluations for LGG. The quality of each study was evaluated using the CHEERS (Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards) checklist, the hierarchy scale developed by Cooper et al. (2005), and the Quality of Health Economic Studies instrument. Three studies met our inclusion criteria. The adjusted incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) values for the included studies ranged from $3934 to $9936, but each evaluated a different aspect of LGG management. All had a good quality of reporting per the CHEERS checklist. Based on the Cooper et al. hierarchy scale, the quality of data use was lacking most for utilities. The quality of study design was scored as 82, 92, and 100 for each study using the Quality of Health Economic Studies instrument. Although a limited number of economic evaluations were identified, the studies evaluated here were well designed. The interventions assessed were all considered cost-effective, but pooled analysis was not possible because of heterogeneity in the interventions assessed. Given the importance of value and cost-effectiveness in medical care, more evidence is needed in this area.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Health economic analyses help determine the value of a medical intervention by assessing the costs and outcomes associated with it. The objective of this study was to assess the level of evidence in economic evaluations for low-grade glioma (LGG) management.
METHODS
Following the PRISMA guidelines, we conducted a systematic review of English articles in Medline, Embase, The Central Registration Depository, EconPapers, and EconLit. The results were screened, and data were extracted by 2 independent reviewers for studies reporting economic evaluations for LGG. The quality of each study was evaluated using the CHEERS (Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards) checklist, the hierarchy scale developed by Cooper et al. (2005), and the Quality of Health Economic Studies instrument.
RESULTS
Three studies met our inclusion criteria. The adjusted incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) values for the included studies ranged from $3934 to $9936, but each evaluated a different aspect of LGG management. All had a good quality of reporting per the CHEERS checklist. Based on the Cooper et al. hierarchy scale, the quality of data use was lacking most for utilities. The quality of study design was scored as 82, 92, and 100 for each study using the Quality of Health Economic Studies instrument.
CONCLUSIONS
Although a limited number of economic evaluations were identified, the studies evaluated here were well designed. The interventions assessed were all considered cost-effective, but pooled analysis was not possible because of heterogeneity in the interventions assessed. Given the importance of value and cost-effectiveness in medical care, more evidence is needed in this area.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34087462
pii: S1878-8750(21)00807-X
doi: 10.1016/j.wneu.2021.05.112
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Systematic Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
189-197.e1Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.