IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0246080.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

An overview of the characteristics and quality assessment criteria in systematic review of pharmacoeconomics

Author

Listed:
  • Chen Min
  • Mi Xue
  • Fei Haotian
  • Li Jialian
  • Zhang Lingli

Abstract

Background: The systematic review of economic evaluations plays a critical role in making well-informed decisions about competing healthcare interventions. The quality of these systematic reviews varies due to the lack of internationally recognized methodological evaluation standards. Methods: Nine English and Chinese databases including the Cochrane Library, PubMed, EMbase (Ovid), NHS economic evaluation database (NHSEED) (Ovid), Health Technology Assessment (HTA) database, Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), WangFang, VIP Chinese Science & Technology Periodicals (VIP) and Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (CBM) were searched. Two reviewers independently screened studies and extracted data. The methodological quality of the literature was measured with modified AMSTAR. Data were narrative synthesized. Results: 165 systematic reviews were included. The overall methodological quality of the literature was moderate according to the AMSTAR scale. In these articles, thirteen quality assessment tools and 32 author self-defined criteria were used. The three most widely used tools were the Drummond checklist (19.4%), the BMJ checklist (15.8%), the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement (12.7%). Others included the Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES), the Consensus on Health Economic Criteria (CHEC), the checklist of Center for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD), the Philips checklist, the World Health Organization (WHO) checklist, the checklist of Critical Appraisal Skills Program (CASP), the Pediatric Quality Appraisal Questionnaire (PQAQ), the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) checklist, Spanish and Chinese guidelines. The quantitative scales used in these literature were the QHES and PQAQ. Conclusions: Evidence showed that pharmacoeconomic systematic reviews’ methodology remained to be improved, and the quality assessment criteria were gradually unified. Multiple scales can be used in combination to evaluate the quality of economic research in different settings and types.

Suggested Citation

  • Chen Min & Mi Xue & Fei Haotian & Li Jialian & Zhang Lingli, 2021. "An overview of the characteristics and quality assessment criteria in systematic review of pharmacoeconomics," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(2), pages 1-13, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0246080
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0246080
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0246080
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0246080&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0246080?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Rob Anderson, 2010. "Systematic reviews of economic evaluations: utility or futility?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 19(3), pages 350-364, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Sanjib Saha & Ulf-G Gerdtham & Pia Johansson, 2010. "Economic Evaluation of Lifestyle Interventions for Preventing Diabetes and Cardiovascular Diseases," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 7(8), pages 1-46, August.
    2. Garattini, Livio & van de Vooren, Katelijne & Curto, Alessandro, 2015. "Cost-effectiveness of trastuzumab in metastatic breast cancer: Mainly a matter of price in the EU?," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 119(2), pages 212-216.
    3. P. Watson & L. Preston & H. Squires & J. Chilcott & A. Brennan, 2014. "Modelling the Economics of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus Prevention: A Literature Review of Methods," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 12(3), pages 239-253, June.
    4. Nadia Pillai & Mark Dusheiko & Bernard Burnand & Valérie Pittet, 2017. "A systematic review of cost-effectiveness studies comparing conventional, biological and surgical interventions for inflammatory bowel disease," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(10), pages 1-22, October.
    5. Tim Mathes & Maren Walgenbach & Sunya-Lee Antoine & Dawid Pieper & Michaela Eikermann, 2014. "Methods for Systematic Reviews of Health Economic Evaluations," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 34(7), pages 826-840, October.
    6. Edward Burn & Alexander D. Liddle & Thomas W. Hamilton & Sunil Pai & Hemant G. Pandit & David W. Murray & Rafael Pinedo-Villanueva, 2017. "Choosing Between Unicompartmental and Total Knee Replacement: What Can Economic Evaluations Tell Us? A Systematic Review," PharmacoEconomics - Open, Springer, vol. 1(4), pages 241-253, December.
    7. Katelijne Vooren & Alessandro Curto & Livio Garattini, 2015. "Pricing of forthcoming therapies for hepatitis C in Europe: beyond cost-effectiveness?," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 16(4), pages 341-345, May.
    8. Lopert, Ruth & Ruiz, Francis & Chalkidou, Kalipso, 2013. "Applying rapid ‘de-facto’ HTA in resource-limited settings: Experience from Romania," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 112(3), pages 202-208.
    9. Elisabet Jacobsen & Dwayne Boyers & Alison Avenell, 2020. "Challenges of Systematic Reviews of Economic Evaluations: A Review of Recent Reviews and an Obesity Case Study," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 38(3), pages 259-267, March.
    10. Kalle Hirvonen, 2020. "This is US: Geography of evidence in top health economics journals," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 29(10), pages 1316-1323, October.
    11. Claudine Bommer & Judith Lupatsch & Nicole Bürki & Matthias Schwenkglenks, 2022. "Cost–utility analysis of risk-reducing strategies to prevent breast and ovarian cancer in BRCA-mutation carriers in Switzerland," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 23(5), pages 807-821, July.
    12. Rajan Sharma & Yuanyuan Gu & Teresa Y. C. Ching & Vivienne Marnane & Bonny Parkinson, 2019. "Economic Evaluations of Childhood Hearing Loss Screening Programmes: A Systematic Review and Critique," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 17(3), pages 331-357, June.
    13. Mathilda Bongers & Veerle Coupé & Elise Jansma & Egbert Smit & Carin Groot, 2012. "Cost Effectiveness of Treatment with New Agents in Advanced Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 30(1), pages 17-34, January.
    14. Bonny Parkinson & Sallie-Anne Pearson & Rosalie Viney, 2014. "Economic evaluations of trastuzumab in HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer: a systematic review and critique," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 15(1), pages 93-112, January.
    15. Frank Pega & Nick Wilson, 2016. "A Systematic Review of Health Economic Analyses of Housing Improvement Interventions and Insecticide-Treated Bednets in the Home," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(6), pages 1-29, June.
    16. Nora Döring & Susanne Mayer & Finn Rasmussen & Diana Sonntag, 2016. "Economic Evaluation of Obesity Prevention in Early Childhood: Methods, Limitations and Recommendations," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 13(9), pages 1-11, September.
    17. Mandana Zanganeh & Peymane Adab & Bai Li & Emma Frew, 2019. "A Systematic Review of Methods, Study Quality, and Results of Economic Evaluation for Childhood and Adolescent Obesity Intervention," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(3), pages 1-14, February.
    18. Vanessa Scarf & Christine Catling & Rosalie Viney & Caroline Homer, 2016. "Costing Alternative Birth Settings for Women at Low Risk of Complications: A Systematic Review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(2), pages 1-17, February.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0246080. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.