Mostrar el registro sencillo del ítem
dc.contributor.author
Mandrik, Olena (Lena)
dc.contributor.author
Severens, J.L. (Hans)
dc.contributor.author
Bardach, Ariel Esteban
![Se ha confirmado la validez de este valor de autoridad por un usuario](/themes/CONICETDigital/images/authority_control/invisible.gif)
dc.contributor.author
Ghabri, Salah
dc.contributor.author
Hamel, Candyce
dc.contributor.author
Mathes, Tim
dc.contributor.author
Vale, Luke
dc.contributor.author
Wisløff, Torbjørn
dc.contributor.author
Goldhaber Fiebert, Jeremy D.
dc.date.available
2023-01-11T15:00:14Z
dc.date.issued
2021-04
dc.identifier.citation
Mandrik, Olena (Lena); Severens, J.L. (Hans); Bardach, Ariel Esteban; Ghabri, Salah; Hamel, Candyce; et al.; Critical Appraisal of Systematic Reviews With Costs and Cost-Effectiveness Outcomes: An ISPOR Good Practices Task Force Report; Elsevier; Value In Health; 24; 4; 4-2021; 463-472
dc.identifier.issn
1098-3015
dc.identifier.uri
http://hdl.handle.net/11336/184345
dc.description.abstract
A systematic review (SR) can provide rigorous and complete evidence to support decision makers who consider both the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of health interventions. A dramatic increase in published health economic (HE) studies, more specifically cost and cost-effectiveness studies, has resulted in the consequent proliferation of systematic reviews with cost and cost-effectiveness outcomes (SR-CCEO).First, such reviews help to indentify strenghts and weaknesses in HE studies, modelling methodologies, and data for modelling inputs. Second, SR-CCEOs may be informative for decisionmakers in resource allocation decisions for health interventions, especially in countries with limited capacity for health technology assessment (HTA). For the purpose of this article, cost studies are defined as studies analyzing the costs of healthcare interventions, includingcost descriptions and cost-of-illness (economic burden of disease) studies. By cost-effectivenessstudies we mean full economic evaluations, including cost-minimization, cost-effectiveness analysis, cost-utility analysis, cost-benefit analysis, and cost-consequence analysis. Sometimes cost studies might be based on an explicit comparison of alternatives.However, it is challenging to appropriately interpret SR-CCEOs owing to their heterogeneity in applied methods and reporting, and furthermore, owing to variability in clinical and health settings in the original studies they include. Methodologic guidance and checklists that improve the quality of SRs on clinical evidence or decrease risk of bias in their interpretation or synthesis have limited applicability for SR-CCEOs. There is little specific methodologicguidance for SR-CCEOs.Although Chapter 20 of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions of the Cochrane Collaboration 12 and 3 articles related to informing clinical practice guidelines provide guidance, their recommendations do not focus on evaluating the quality of conduct or the risk of bias in SR-CCEOs. A critical analysis of guidelines on conducting and reporting SR-CCEOs identified multiple disagreements in these recommendations, suggesting that a standardized approach to conducting SR-CCEOs is needed.Making universal recommendations for SR-CCEOs is difficult because they differ in several important aspects, in particular, with regard to their search and inclusion criteria, such as the types of studies included (trial or model-based, cost, or cost-effectiveness), or in reporting solely economic characteristics or economic data alongside clinical outcomes. They also have different objectives (eg, to assess variability in outcomes and synthesize the findings) to identify the evidence gaps, or to assess the methods used.Overall, SR-CCEO reliability and usefulness will improve with good practice guidance for SR-CCEOs with different objectives. Thus, ISPOR (The Professional Society for Health Economics and Outcomes Research) established a global, multistakeholder, multidisciplinary expert task force to address this need (Appendix 1 in Supplemental Materials found at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2021.01.002). Although general recommendations on conducting SR-CCEOs are provided, the main goal is guidance on critical appraisal of SR-CCEOs regarding their quality and risk of bias. This report, which includes the ISPOR Criteria for Cost(-Effectiveness) Review Outcomes (CiCERO) Checklist, will assist researchers, producers of health technologies, and evidence users (decision makers/commissioners). The task force categorized the recommendations according to the 6 stages of conducting an SR-CCEO (Table 1).
dc.format
application/pdf
dc.language.iso
eng
dc.publisher
Elsevier
![Se ha confirmado la validez de este valor de autoridad por un usuario](/themes/CONICETDigital/images/authority_control/invisible.gif)
dc.rights
info:eu-repo/semantics/restrictedAccess
dc.rights.uri
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/ar/
dc.subject
SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS
dc.subject
HEALTH INTERVENTIONS
dc.subject
COST EFFECTIVENESS
dc.subject
COST
dc.subject.classification
Otras Ciencias de la Salud
![Se ha confirmado la validez de este valor de autoridad por un usuario](/themes/CONICETDigital/images/authority_control/invisible.gif)
dc.subject.classification
Ciencias de la Salud
![Se ha confirmado la validez de este valor de autoridad por un usuario](/themes/CONICETDigital/images/authority_control/invisible.gif)
dc.subject.classification
CIENCIAS MÉDICAS Y DE LA SALUD
![Se ha confirmado la validez de este valor de autoridad por un usuario](/themes/CONICETDigital/images/authority_control/invisible.gif)
dc.title
Critical Appraisal of Systematic Reviews With Costs and Cost-Effectiveness Outcomes: An ISPOR Good Practices Task Force Report
dc.type
info:eu-repo/semantics/article
dc.type
info:ar-repo/semantics/artículo
dc.type
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
dc.date.updated
2022-09-29T13:48:14Z
dc.journal.volume
24
dc.journal.number
4
dc.journal.pagination
463-472
dc.journal.pais
Países Bajos
![Se ha confirmado la validez de este valor de autoridad por un usuario](/themes/CONICETDigital/images/authority_control/invisible.gif)
dc.journal.ciudad
Amsterdam
dc.description.fil
Fil: Mandrik, Olena (Lena). University Of Sheffield (university Of Sheffield);
dc.description.fil
Fil: Severens, J.L. (Hans). Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam; Países Bajos
dc.description.fil
Fil: Bardach, Ariel Esteban. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Oficina de Coordinación Administrativa Parque Centenario. Centro de Investigaciones en Epidemiología y Salud Pública. Instituto de Efectividad Clínica y Sanitaria. Centro de Investigaciones en Epidemiología y Salud Pública; Argentina
dc.description.fil
Fil: Ghabri, Salah. French National Authority For Health; Francia
dc.description.fil
Fil: Hamel, Candyce. University Of Ottawa. Ottawa Hospital Research Institute; Canadá
dc.description.fil
Fil: Mathes, Tim. Universität Witten/Herdecke; Alemania
dc.description.fil
Fil: Vale, Luke. University of Newcastle; Reino Unido
dc.description.fil
Fil: Wisløff, Torbjørn. Uit The Arctic University Of Norway; Noruega
dc.description.fil
Fil: Goldhaber Fiebert, Jeremy D.. University of Stanford; Estados Unidos
dc.journal.title
Value In Health
![Se ha confirmado la validez de este valor de autoridad por un usuario](/themes/CONICETDigital/images/authority_control/invisible.gif)
dc.relation.alternativeid
info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/url/https://www.valueinhealthjournal.com/article/S1098-3015(21)00095-4
dc.relation.alternativeid
info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/doi/http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2021.01.002
Archivos asociados