Title |
Systematic reviews of health economic evaluations: a protocol for a systematic review of characteristics and methods applied
|
---|---|
Published in |
Systematic Reviews, December 2017
|
DOI | 10.1186/s13643-017-0639-8 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Miriam Luhnen, Barbara Prediger, Edmund A. M. Neugebauer, Tim Mathes |
Abstract |
The number of systematic reviews of economic evaluations is steadily increasing. This is probably related to the continuing pressure on health budgets worldwide which makes an efficient resource allocation increasingly crucial. In particular in recent years, the introduction of several high-cost interventions presents enormous challenges regarding universal accessibility and sustainability of health care systems. An increasing number of health authorities, inter alia, feel the need for analyzing economic evidence. Economic evidence might effectively be generated by means of systematic reviews. Nevertheless, no standard methods seem to exist for their preparation so far. The objective of this study was to analyze the methods applied for systematic reviews of health economic evaluations (SR-HE) with a focus on the identification of common challenges. The planned study is a systematic review of the characteristics and methods actually applied in SR-HE. We will combine validated search filters developed for the retrieval of economic evaluations and systematic reviews to identify relevant studies in MEDLINE (via Ovid, 2015-present). To be eligible for inclusion, studies have to conduct a systematic review of full economic evaluations. Articles focusing exclusively on methodological aspects and secondary publications of health technology assessment (HTA) reports will be excluded. Two reviewers will independently assess titles and abstracts and then full-texts of studies for eligibility. Methodological features will be extracted in a standardized, beforehand piloted data extraction form. Data will be summarized with descriptive statistical measures and systematically analyzed focusing on differences/similarities and methodological weaknesses. The systematic review will provide a detailed overview of characteristics of SR-HE and the applied methods. Differences and methodological shortcomings will be detected and their implications will be discussed. The findings of our study can improve the recommendations on the preparation of SR-HE. This can increase the acceptance and usefulness of systematic reviews in health economics for researchers and medical decision makers. The review will not be registered with PROSPERO as it does not meet the eligibility criterion of dealing with clinical outcomes. |
Twitter Demographics
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United Kingdom | 3 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 3 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Unknown | 73 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Student > Master | 15 | 21% |
Student > Ph. D. Student | 14 | 19% |
Student > Bachelor | 9 | 12% |
Researcher | 8 | 11% |
Student > Doctoral Student | 7 | 10% |
Other | 7 | 10% |
Unknown | 13 | 18% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Medicine and Dentistry | 16 | 22% |
Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 13 | 18% |
Nursing and Health Professions | 7 | 10% |
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 6 | 8% |
Business, Management and Accounting | 3 | 4% |
Other | 13 | 18% |
Unknown | 15 | 21% |