Specific guidelines for assessing and improving the methodological quality of economic evaluations of newborn screening

BMC Health Services Research

Volumn 12, Issue 1, 2012, Pages

  Langer, Astrid ^a,b   Holle, Rolf ^b   John, Jürgen ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MUNICH   (Germany)

^b INSTITUTE OF EPIDEMIOLOGY   (Germany)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; ECONOMICS; GENETIC DISORDER; GENETIC SCREENING; HUMAN; METABOLIC DISORDER; METHODOLOGY; NEWBORN; NEWBORN SCREENING; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; STANDARD;

COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; GENETIC DISEASES, INBORN; GENETIC TESTING; HUMANS; INFANT, NEWBORN; METABOLIC DISEASES; NEONATAL SCREENING; PRACTICE GUIDELINES AS TOPIC;

EID: 84865618687     PISSN: None     EISSN: 14726963     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/1472-6963-12-300     Document Type: Article

References (97)

1. Drummond MF, Sculpher MJ, Torrance GW, O'Brien BJ, Stoddart GL, Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes Oxford University Press, New York 3 2005
2. Growth and quality of the cost-utility literature, 1976-2001. Neumann PJ, Greenberg D, Olchanski NV, Stone PW, Rosen AB, Value Health 2005 8 1 3 9 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2005.04010.x 15841889
3. 30 years of pharmaceutical cost-utility analyses: growth, diversity and methodological improvement. Neumann PJ, Fang CH, Cohen JT, Pharmacoeconomics 2009 27 10 861 872 10.2165/11312720-000000000-00000 19803540
4. HEE-GER: a systematic review of German economic evaluations of health care published 1990-2004. Schwappach DL, Boluarte TA, BMC Health Serv Res 2007 7 7 10.1186/1472-6963-7-7 17222334
5. Common methodological flaws in economic evaluations. Drummond M, Sculpher M, Med Care 2005 43 7 Suppl 5 14 16056003
6. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011] The Cochrane Collaboration, Higgins JPT, Green S, 2011 Available from www.cochrane-handbook.org
7. Guidelines for authors and peer reviewers of economic submissions to the BMJ. The BMJ Economic Evaluation Working Party. Drummond MF, Jefferson TO, BMJ 1996 313 7052 275 283 10.1136/bmj.313.7052.275 8704542
8. Criteria list for assessment of methodological quality of economic evaluations: Consensus on Health Economic Criteria. Evers S, Goossens M, de Vet H, van Tulder M, Ament A, Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2005 21 2 240 245 15921065
9. Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, Systematic reviews: CRD's guidance for undertaking reviews in health care University of York, York 2009 22882967
10. Mittmann N, Evans WK, Rocchi A, Longo CJ, Au HJ, Husereau D, Leighl N, Isogai P, Krahn M, Peacock S, et al. Addendum to CADTHs Guidelines for the Economic Evaluation of Health Technologies: Specific Guidance for Oncology Products Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health, Ottawa 2009
11. The uniqueness of child health and challenges to measuring costs and consequences. Ungar WJ, Gerber A, Economic Evaluation in Child Health Oxford University Press, Oxford, Ungar WJ, 2009
12. Economic evaluations of newborn screening. Grosse SD, Economic Evaluation in Child Health Oxford University Press, Oxford, Ungar WJ, 2009
13. International perspectives on the cost-effectiveness of tandem mass spectrometry for rare metabolic conditions. Norman R, Haas M, Wilcken B, Health Policy 2009 89 3 252 260 10.1016/j.healthpol.2008.08.003 18823674
14. Luce BR, Elixhauser A, Standards for Socioeconomic Evaluation of Health Care Products and Services Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg 1990
15. Gold MR, Russell LB, Siegel JE, Weinstein MC, Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine Oxford University Press, Oxford 1996
16. Principles of good practice for decision analytic modeling in health-care evaluation: report of the ISPOR Task Force on Good Research Practices-Modeling Studies. Weinstein MC, O'Brien B, Hornberger J, Jackson J, Johannesson M, McCabe C, Luce BR, Value Health 2003 6 1 9 17 10.1046/j.1524-4733.2003.00234.x 12535234
17. Good research practices for cost-effectiveness analysis alongside clinical trials: the ISPOR RCT-CEA Task Force report. Ramsey S, Willke R, Briggs A, Brown R, Buxton M, Chawla A, Cook J, Glick H, Liljas B, Petitti D, et al. Value Health 2005 8 5 521 533 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2005.00045.x 16176491
18. Development and validation of a grading system for the quality of cost-effectiveness studies. Chiou CF, Hay JW, Wallace JF, Bloom BS, Neumann PJ, Sullivan SD, Yu HT, Keeler EB, Henning JM, Ofman JJ, Med Care 2003 41 1 32 44 10.1097/00005650-200301000-00007 12544542
19. Entwicklung eines Kriterienkataloges zur Beschreibung und Bewertung ökonomischer Evaluationsstudien in Deutschland. Siebert U, Behrend C, Mühlberger N, Wasem J, Greiner W, Graf von der Schulenburg JM, Welte R, Leidl R, Approaches and methods of economic evaluation in health care-an international perspective Nomos, Baden-Baden, Leidl R, Graf von der Schulenburg JM, Wasem J, 1999 156 170
20. German recommendations on health economic evaluation: third and updated version of the Hanover Consensus. Graf von der Schulenburg JM, Greiner W, Jost F, Klusen N, Kubin M, Leidl R, Mittendorf T, Rebscher H, Schoeffski O, Vauth C, et al. Value Health 2008 11 4 539 544 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2007.00301.x 18194408
21. Good practice guidelines for decision-analytic modelling in health technology assessment: a review and consolidation of quality assessment. Philips Z, Bojke L, Sculpher M, Claxton K, Golder S, Pharmacoeconomics 2006 24 4 355 371 10.2165/00019053-200624040-00006 16605282
22. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, Updated guide to the methods of technology appraisal-June 2008 National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, London 2008
23. Screening of the hearing of newborns-Update. Schnell-Inderst P, Kunze S, Hessel F, Grill E, Siebert U, Nickisch A, von Voss H, Wasem J, GMS Health Technol Assess 2006 2 oc20 21289971
24. Merlin T, Hedayati H, Sullivan T, Buckley E, Newton S, Hodgkinson B, Bywood P, Jenner F, Moss J, Hiller JE, Universal neonatal hearing screening. MSAC reference 17 Assessment report MSAC, Canberra 2007
25. Schopflocher D, Corabian P, Eng K, Lier D, Screening Newborns for Hearing Institute of Health Economics, Alberta 2007
26. Tran K, Banerjee S, Li H, Noorani HZ, Mensinkai S, Dooley K, Newborn screening for medium chain acyl∼CoA dehydrogenase deficiency using tandem mass spectrometry: clinical and cost-effectiveness [Technology report no 62] Canadian Coordinating Office for Health Technology Assessment, Ottawa 2006
27. Clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of neonatal screening for inborn errors of metabolism using tandem mass spectrometry: a systematic review. Pandor A, Eastham J, Beverley C, Chilcott J, Paisley S, Health Technol Assess 2004 iii 12 1 121
28. Decision analysis, economic evaluation, and newborn screening: challenges and opportunities. Prosser LA, Grosse SD, Kemper AR, Tarini BA, Perrin JM, Genet Med 2012 Apr 5 Epub ahead of print PubMed PMID 22481131 10.1038/gim.2012.24
29. Review of guidelines for good practice in decision-analytic modelling in health technology assessment. Philips Z, Ginnelly L, Sculpher M, Claxton K, Golder S, Riemsma R, Woolacoot N, Glanville J, Health Technol Assess 2004 8 36 ii iv ix-xi, 1-158 15544708
30. Challenges in Health State Valuation in Paediatric Economic Evaluation: Are QALYs Contraindicated? Ungar WJ, Pharmacoeconomics 2011 29 8 641 652 10.2165/11591570-000000000-00000 21604821
31. Measurement of health utilities in children. Sung L, Petrou S, Ungar WJ, Economic Evaluation in Child Health Oxford University Press, Oxford, Ungar WJ, 2009
32. Valuing patient and caregiver time: a review of the literature. Tranmer JE, Guerriere DN, Ungar WJ, Coyte PC, Pharmacoeconomics 2005 23 5 449 459 10.2165/00019053-200523050-00005 15896097
33. Programme costs in the economic evaluation of health interventions. Johns B, Baltussen R, Hutubessy R, Cost Eff Resour Alloc 2003 1 1 1 10.1186/1478-7547-1-1 12773220
34. Accounting for future costs in medical cost-effectiveness analysis. Meltzer D, J Health Econ 1997 16 1 33 64 10.1016/S0167-6296(96)00507-3 10167344
35. Should the consumption of survivors be included as a cost in cost-utility analysis? Nyman JA, Health Econ 2004 13 5 417 427 10.1002/hec.850 15127422
36. Unrelated medical care in life years gained and the cost utility of primary prevention: in search of a 'perfect' cost-utility ratio. Van Baal PH, Feenstra TL, Hoogenveen RT, de Wit GA, Brouwer WB, Health Econ 2007 16 4 421 433 10.1002/hec.1181 17039573
37. Standardizing the inclusion of indirect medical costs in economic evaluations. Van Baal PH, Wong A, Slobbe LC, Polder JJ, Brouwer WB, de Wit GA, Pharmacoeconomics 2011 29 3 175 187 10.2165/11586130-000000000-00000 21184618
38. Lifestyle intervention: from cost savings to value for money. Rappange DR, Brouwer WB, Rutten FF, van Baal PH, J Public Health (Oxf) 2010 32 3 440 447 10.1093/pubmed/fdp079
39. On future non-medical costs in economic evaluations. Liljas B, Karlsson GS, Stalhammar NO, Health Econ 2008 17 5 579 591 10.1002/hec.1279 17787027
40. Discounting and decision making in the economic evaluation of health-care technologies. Claxton K, Paulden M, Gravelle H, Brouwer W, Culyer AJ, Health Econ 2011 20 1 2 15 10.1002/hec.1612 21154521
41. Towards a social discount rate for the economic evaluation of health technologies in Germany: an exploratory analysis. Schad M, John J, Eur J Health Econ 2012 13 2 127 144 10.1007/s10198-010-0292-9 21170731
42. Cost-effectiveness as a criterion for newborn screening policy decisions. Grosse SD, Ethics and Newborn Genetic Screening: New Technologies, New Challenges John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Baily MA, Murray TH, 2009 58 88
43. A decision chart for assessing and improving the transferability of economic evaluation results between countries. Welte R, Feenstra T, Jager H, Leidl R, Pharmacoeconomics 2004 22 13 857 876 10.2165/00019053-200422130-00004 15329031
44. Ethical issues in newborn screening and the impact of new technologies. Wilcken B, Eur J Pediatr 2003 162 Suppl 1 62 S66 14618395
45. Cost-Effectiveness and Disability Discrimination. Brock DW, Econ Philos 2009 25 1 27 47 10.1017/S0266267108002265
46. Ethics, evidence, and cost in newborn screening. Baily MA, Murray TH, Hastings Cent Rep 2008 38 3 23 31 10.1353/hcr.0.0009 19192712
47. Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, NHS ECONOMIC EVALUATION DATABASE HANDBOOK University of York, York 2007
48. Cost analysis of a universal newborn hearing screening for clinics using the State of Hesse as an example. Böttcher P, Gramss M, Euler HA, Neumann K, HNO 2009 57 1 21 28 10.1007/s00106-008-1879-7 19145419
49. Costs of different strategies for neonatal hearing screening: a modelling approach. Boshuizen HC, van der Lem GJ, Kauffman-de Boer MA, van Zanten GA, Oudesluys-Murphy AM, Verkerk PH, Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed 2001 85 3 177 F181 10.1136/fn.85.3.F177 11668159
50. Screening strategies for neonatal hearing loss: Which test is best? Dort JC, Tobolski C, Brown D, J Otolaryngol 2000 29 4 206 210 11003070
51. Some issues relevant to establishing a universal newborn hearing screening program. Gorga MP, Preissler K, Simmons J, Walker L, Hoover B, J Am Acad Audiol 2001 12 2 101 112 11261458
52. Neonatal hearing screening: modelling cost and effectiveness of hospital- and community-based screening. Grill E, Uus K, Hessel F, Davies L, Taylor RS, Wasem J, Bamford J, BMC Health Serv Res 2006 6 14 10.1186/1472-6963-6-14 16504089
53. Hearing screening in newborn infants. Comparative studies and cost analysis with different instruments. Heinemann M, Bohnert A, Laryngorhinootologie 2000 79 8 453 458 10.1055/s-2000-5911 11006908
54. Impact of technology choice on service provision for universal newborn hearing screening within a busy district hospital. Iley KL, Addis RJ, J Perinatol 2000 20 8 Pt 2 122 S127 11190692
55. Cost and cost-effectiveness of universal screening for hearing loss in newborns. Kezirian EJ, White KR, Yueh B, Sullivan SD, Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2001 124 4 359 367 10.1067/mhn.2001.113945 11283492
56. Newborn hearing screening: costs of establishing a program. Lemons J, Fanaroff A, Stewart EJ, Bentkover JD, Murray G, Diefendorf A, J Perinatol 2002 22 2 120 124 10.1038/sj.jp.7210618 11896516
57. Comparison of costs and referral rates of 3 universal newborn hearing screening protocols. Vohr BR, Oh W, Stewart EJ, Bentkover JD, Gabbard S, Lemons J, Papile LA, Pye R, J Pediatr 2001 139 2 238 244 10.1067/mpd.2001.115971 11487750
58. Reducing false positives in newborn hearing screening program: how and why. Lin HC, Shu MT, Lee KS, Lin HY, Lin G, Otol Neurotol 2007 28 6 788 792 10.1097/MAO.0b013e3180cab754 17948357
59. Comparison of hearing screening programs between one step with transient evoked otoacoustic emissions (TEOAE) and two steps with TEOAE and automated auditory brainstem response. Lin HC, Shu MT, Lee KS, Ho GM, Fu TY, Bruna S, Lin G, Laryngoscope 2005 115 11 1957 1962 10.1097/01.mlg.0000178323.06183.3e 16319605
60. Projected cost-effectiveness of statewide universal newborn hearing screening. Keren R, Helfand M, Homer C, McPhillips H, Lieu TA, Pediatrics 2002 110 5 855 864 10.1542/peds.110.5.855 12415021
61. Economic evaluation of newborn hearing screening: modelling costs and outcomes. Hessel F, Grill E, Schnell-Inderst P, Siebert U, Kunze S, Nickisch A, von Voss H, Wasem J, Ger Med Sci 2003 1 oc09 19675707
62. A cost-effectiveness analysis of newborn hearing screening strategies. Kemper AR, Downs SM, Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 2000 154 5 484 488 10807300
63. An analysis of the costs of implementing the National Newborn Hearing Screening Programme in England. Uus K, Bamford J, Taylor R, J Med Screen 2006 13 1 14 19 10.1258/096914106776179764 16569300
64. Brainstem response methods for neonatal hearing screening]. Neumann K, Berger R, Euler HA, Ahr A, Gall V, Zeitschrift für Audiologie 2004 43 1 10 21 19349661
65. Lenarz T, Reuter G, Buser K, Altenhofen L, Modellprogramm Verbesserung der Früherfassung von Hörstörungen im Kindesalter. Machbarkeits- und Evaluationsstudie zum Einsatz otoakustischer Emissionen bei Neugeborenen Deutscher rzte-Verlag, Köln 2007
66. Hearing screening in newborns: systematic review of accuracy, effectiveness, and effects of interventions after screening. Wolff R, Hommerich J, Riemsma R, Antes G, Lange S, Kleijnen J, Arch Dis Child 2010 95 2 130 135 10.1136/adc.2008.151092 19329444
67. Institut für Qualität und Wirtschaftlichkeit im Gesundheitswesen, Newborn hearing screening in the detection of hearing impairment Institut für Qualität und Wirtschaftlichkeit im Gesundheitswesen (IQWiG), Köln 2007
68. Universal newborn hearing screening: systematic review to update the 2001 US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation. Nelson HD, Bougatsos C, Nygren P, Pediatrics 2008 122 1 266 e276 10.1542/peds.2007-1422 18595973
69. Health economic analysis of screening. Krauth C, GMS Curr Top Otorhinolaryngology-Head Neck Surg 2008 7 1 14
70. Expanding screening for rare metabolic disease in the newborn: an analysis of costs, effect and ethical consequences for decision-making in Finland. Autti-Rämö I, Makela M, Sintonen H, Koskinen H, Laajalahti L, Halila R, Kaariainen H, Lapatto R, Nanto-Salonen K, Pulkki K, et al. Acta Paediatr 2005 94 8 1126 1136 10.1080/08035250510029497 16188860
71. Clinical efficacy and cost-effectiveness of newborn screening for medium chain acyl-CoA dehydrogenase deficiency using tandem mass spectrometry. Tran K, Banerjee S, Li H, Noorani HZ, Mensinkai S, Dooley K, Clin Biochem 2007 40 3-4 235 241 17222812
72. Cost-effectiveness of neonatal screening for medium chain acyl-CoA dehydrogenase deficiency: the homogeneous population of The Netherlands. Van der Hilst CS, Derks TG, Reijngoud DJ, Smit GP, TenVergert EM, J Pediatr 2007 151 2 115 120 120 e111-113 10.1016/j.jpeds.2007.03.013 17643759
73. Newborn screening by tandem mass spectrometry for medium-chain Acyl-CoA dehydrogenase deficiency: a cost-effectiveness analysis. Venditti LN, Venditti CP, Berry GT, Kaplan PB, Kaye EM, Glick H, Stanley CA, Pediatrics 2003 112 5 1005 1015 10.1542/peds.112.5.1005 14595039
74. Economics of tandem mass spectrometry screening of neonatal inherited disorders. Pandor A, Eastham J, Chilcott J, Paisley S, Beverley C, Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2006 22 3 321 326 16984060
75. Cost-benefit analysis of universal tandem mass spectrometry for newborn screening. Schoen EJ, Baker JC, Colby CJ, To TT, Pediatrics 2002 110 4 781 786 10.1542/peds.110.4.781 12359795
76. Comprehensive cost-utility analysis of newborn screening strategies. Carroll AE, Downs SM, Pediatrics 2006 117 5 Pt 2 287 S295 16735255
77. Newborn screening with tandem mass spectrometry: examining its cost-effectiveness in the Wisconsin Newborn Screening Panel. Insinga RP, Laessig RH, Hoffman GL, J Pediatr 2002 141 4 524 531 10.1067/mpd.2002.128116 12378192
78. The cost-effectiveness of expanding newborn screening for up to 21 inherited metabolic disorders using tandem mass spectrometry: results from a decision-analytic model. Cipriano LE, Rupar CA, Zaric GS, Value Health 2007 10 2 83 97 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2006.00156.x 17391418
79. Hamers FF, Scemama O, Rumeau-Pichon C, Evaluation de lextension du dépistage néonatal une ou plusieurs erreurs innées du métabolisme par spectrométrie de masse en tandem. 1er volet: déficit en MCAD Haute Autorite de Sante (HAS), Saint-Denis La Plaine Cedex 2011 21440569
80. Projected costs, risks, and benefits of expanded newborn screening for MCADD. Prosser LA, Kong CY, Rusinak D, Waisbren SL, Pediatrics 2010 125 2 286 e294 10.1542/peds.2009-0605 20123779
81. Economic evaluation of tandem mass spectrometry newborn screening in Australia. Norman R, Haas M, Chaplin M, Joy P, Wilcken B, Pediatrics 2009 123 2 451 457 10.1542/peds.2008-0911 19171609
82. Quality-adjusted life-years lack quality in pediatric care: a critical review of published cost-utility studies in child health. Griebsch I, Coast J, Brown J, Pediatrics 2005 115 5 600 e614 10.1542/peds.2004-2127 15867026
83. Methodological issues raised by preference-based approaches to measuring the health status of children. Petrou S, Health Econ 2003 12 8 697 702 10.1002/hec.775 12898666
84. Measuring health preferences for use in cost-utility and cost-benefit analyses of interventions in children: theoretical and methodological considerations. Prosser LA, Hammitt JK, Keren R, Pharmacoeconomics 2007 25 9 713 726 10.2165/00019053-200725090-00001 17803331
85. Improving decision analyses: parent preferences (utility values) for pediatric health outcomes. Carroll AE, Downs SM, J Pediatr 2009 155 1 21 25 25 e21-25 10.1016/j.jpeds.2009.01.040 19394030
86. Application of classic utilities to published pediatric cost-utility studies. Finnell SM, Carroll AE, Downs SM, Acad Pediatr 2012 12 3 219 228 10.1016/j.acap.2011.09.003 22075466
87. QALY weights for neurosensory impairments in pediatric economic evaluations: case studies and a critique. Grosse SD, Prosser LA, Asakawa K, Feeny D, Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res 2010 10 3 293 308 10.1586/erp.10.24 20545594
88. Development of the EQ-5D-Y: a child-friendly version of the EQ-5D. Wille N, Badia X, Bonsel G, Burstrom K, Cavrini G, Devlin N, Egmar AC, Greiner W, Gusi N, Herdman M, et al. Qual Life Res 2010 19 6 875 886 10.1007/s11136-010-9648-y 20405245
89. Feasibility, reliability, and validity of the EQ-5D-Y: results from a multinational study. Ravens-Sieberer U, Wille N, Badia X, Bonsel G, Burstrom K, Cavrini G, Devlin N, Egmar AC, Gusi N, Herdman M, et al. Qual Life Res 2010 19 6 887 897 10.1007/s11136-010-9649-x 20401552
90. The Pediatric Quality Appraisal Questionnaire: an instrument for evaluation of the pediatric health economics literature. Ungar WJ, Santos MT, Value Health 2003 6 5 584 594 10.1046/j.1524-4733.2003.65253.x 14627065
91. Quality appraisal of pediatric health economic evaluations. Ungar WJ, Santos MT, Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2005 21 2 203 210 15921060
92. Newborn screening for all identifiable disorders with tandem mass spectrometry is cost effective: the negative case. Wilcken B, Ann Acad Med Singapore 2008 37 12 Suppl 36 33 19904444
93. Newborn screening for all identifiable disorders with tandem mass spectrometry is cost effective: supporting arguments. Therrell BL, Buechner C, Ann Acad Med Singapore 2008 37 12 Suppl 32 34 19904443
94. Can economic evaluations be made more transferable? Boulenger S, Nixon J, Drummond M, Ulmann P, Rice S, de Pouvourville G, Eur J Health Econ 2005 6 4 334 346 10.1007/s10198-005-0322-1 16249933
95. Assessing quality in decision analytic cost-effectiveness models. A suggested framework and example of application. Sculpher M, Fenwick E, Claxton K, Pharmacoeconomics 2000 17 5 461 477 10.2165/00019053-200017050-00005 10977388
96. Grading systems for cost-effectiveness studies: is the whole greater than the sum of the parts? Stearns SC, Drummond M, Med Care 2003 41 1 1 3 10.1097/00005650-200301000-00001 12544536
97. Increasing decision-makers access to economic evaluations: alternative methods of communicating the information. Thurston SJ, Craig D, Wilson P, Drummond MF, Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2008 24 151 157 18400117