How to prepare a systematic review of economic evaluations for informing evidence-based healthcare decisions: a five-step approach (part 1/3)

Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research

Volumn 16, Issue 6, 2016, Pages 689-704

  van Mastrigt, Ghislaine A P G ^a   Hiligsmann, Mickaël ^a   Arts, Jacobus J C ^b   Broos, Pieter H ^c   Kleijnen, Jos ^a   Evers, Silvia M A A ^a,d   Majoie, Marian H J M ^a,b,e  

^a MAASTRICHT UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

^b MAASTRICHT UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

^c Knowledge Institute of Medical Specialists   (Netherlands)

^d NETHERLANDS INSTITUTE OF MENTAL HEALTH AND ADDICTION   (Netherlands)

^e EPILEPSY CENTER KEMPENHAEGHE   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

clinical practice guidelines; data extraction; databases; economic evaluations; guidance; Methods; quality appraisal; reporting and discussion; risk of bias; search strategies; systematic reviews

Indexed keywords

DATA BASE; DATA EXTRACTION; ECONOMIC EVALUATION; HUMAN; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; DECISION MAKING; ECONOMICS; EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE; HEALTH CARE DELIVERY; LITERATURE; METHODOLOGY; PROCEDURES; STATISTICAL BIAS;

BIAS (EPIDEMIOLOGY); COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; DECISION MAKING; DELIVERY OF HEALTH CARE; EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE; HUMANS; PRACTICE GUIDELINES AS TOPIC; RESEARCH DESIGN; REVIEW LITERATURE AS TOPIC;

EID: 84997336182     PISSN: 14737167     EISSN: 17448379     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/14737167.2016.1246960     Document Type: Review

References (87)

1. Shemilt I, McDaid D, Marsh K, et al. Issues in the incorporation of economic perspectives and evidence into cochrane reviews. Syst Rev. 2013;2:83.
2. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses:the PRISMA statement. Bmj. 2009;339:b2535.
3. Grant MJ., A typology of reviews:an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Inf Libraries J. 2009;26(2):91–108.
4. Shemilt I. Evidence-based decisions and economics, health care, social welfare education and criminal justice. second ed. Chichester:Wiely-Blackwell; 2010.
5. Khan KS, Kunz R, Kleijnen J, et al. Five steps to conducting a systematic review. J R Soc Med. 2003;96(3):118–121.
6. Pharmaeconomic Guidelines [http://www.ispor.org/peguidelines/index.asp]
7. Akers J, Aguiar-Ibáñez R, Baba-Akbari Sari A. CRD’s guidance for undertaking reviews in health care. York (UK):Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD); 2009.
8. Brunetti M, Shemilt I, Pregno S, et al. GRADE guidelines:10. Considering resource use and rating the quality of economic evidence. J Clin Epidemiol. 2013;66(2):140–150.
9. Qaseem A, Forland F, Macbeth F, et al. Guidelines international network:toward international standards for clinical practice guidelines. Ann Intern Med. 2012;156(7):525–531.
10. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality: methods guide for effectiveness and comparative effectiveness reviews:agency for healthcare research and quality. Rockville (MD):Bookshelf; 2008.
11. Developing NICE guidelines:the manual. [http://www.nice.org.uk/article/PMG20/chapter/7-Incorporating-economic-evaluation]•• Synopsis:This manual provides a detailed description on how economic evidence is incorporated into NICE Guidelines.
12. Higgins J, Green S. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 5.1. 0. Chichester:The Cochrane Collaboration; 2013.•• Synopsis:the Cochrane handbook is a state of the arts description of preparing a SR for effectiveness studies, containing also specific information on preparing SR-EEs.
13. Institute JB. Joanna Briggs institute reviewers’ manual 2014. [Internet]. Adelaide:JBI; 2014. cited 2015 May15.
14. Institute of Medicine. GRADE working group. [http://www.gradeworkinggroup.org/]
15. Finding what works in health care:standards for systematic reviews. Washington DC:Institute of Medicine; 2011.
16. Brouwers MC, Kho ME, Browman GP, et al. AGREE II:advancing guideline development, reporting and evaluation in health care. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010;63(12):1308–1311.• Synopsis:the paper by Brouwer et al. provides a good overview of the AGREE II tool, a generic 23-item tool to assess the process of clinical practice guideline development and reporting.
17. Brunetti M, Ruiz F, Lord J, et al. Grading economic evidence. Oxford:Wiley-Blackwell; 2010.• Synopsis:Chapter provides a detailed description on how GRADE approach to rating the quality of evidence and how the standard GRADE profile can capture both clinical evidence and at on the impact of interventions on resource use.
18. Thielen FW, Van Mastrigt GAPG, Burgers LT, et al. How to prepare a systematic review of economic evaluations for informing evidence-based healthcare decisions:database selection and search strategy development (part 2/3). doi:10.1080/14737167.2016.1246962. [Epub ahead of print]•• Synopsis:Thielen et al. describe the second step of the SR-EE review process in detail. More specific, how to select the relevant databases, how to develop search strategies, how to perform the searches and how to select the studies.
19. Wijnen B, Van Mastrigt GAPG, Redekop WK, et al. How to prepare a systematic review of economic evaluations for informing evidence-based healthcare decisions:data extraction, risk of bias, and transferability (part 3/3). doi:10.1080/14737167.2016.1246961. [Epub ahead of print]•• Synopsis:Wijnen et al. describe the third step of the SR-EE review process in detail. More specific, how to develop a data-extraction sheet, how to select an appropriate risk of bias assessment checklist and how to check on transferability.
20. Drummond M, Schulper MJ, Claxton K, et al. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. 4th ed. Oxford:Oxford University Press; 2016.
21. Gold M, Siegel J, Russell L, et al. Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine:report of the panel on cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. New York:Oxford University Press; 1996.
22. Mauskopf JA, Sullivan SD, Annemans L, et al. Principles of good practice for budget impact analysis:report of the ISPOR task force on good research practices–budget impact analysis. Value Health. 2007;10(5):336–347.
23. Sullivan SD, Mauskopf JA, Augustovski F, :Principles of good practice for budget impact analysis II:report of the ISPOR task force on good research practices–budget impact analysis. Value Health 2014, 175–14.
24. Briggs A, Fenn P. Confidence intervals or surfaces? Uncertainty on the cost-effectiveness plane. Health Econ. 1998;7(8):723–740.
25. Medicine Io. Clinical practice guidelines we can trust. Washington:The national academies press; 2011.
26. World Health Organisation. WHO handbook for guideline development. Geneva:World Health Organization; 2014.
27. Moher D, Shamseer L, Clarke M, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Syst Rev. 2015;4(1):1.
28. Beller EM, Glasziou PP, Altman DG, et al. PRISMA for abstracts:reporting systematic reviews in journal and conference abstracts prisma for abstracts group. PLoS Med. 2013;10(4):e1001419.
29. Husereau D, Drummond M, Petrou S, et al. Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement. Value Health. 2013;16(2):e1–5.
30. Schunemann HJ, Al-Ansary LA, Forland F, et al. Guidelines international network:principles for disclosure of interests and management of conflicts in guidelines. Ann Intern Med. 2015;163(7):548–553.
31. Schünemann HJ, Jaeschke R, Cook DJ, et al. An official ATS statement:grading the quality of evidence and strength of recommendations in ATS guidelines and recommendations. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2006;174(5):605–614.
32. International prospective registry of systematic reviews. [http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/]
33. Cochrane collaboration. [www.cochrane.org]
34. Petticrew M, Roberts H. Systematic reviews in the social sciences: A practical guide. Oxford:Blackwell; 2006.
35. Wijnen B, Van Mastrigt G, Evers S, et al. A systematic review of economic evaluations of treatments for patients with epilepsy. submitted.
36. Smith V, Devane D, Begley CM, et al. Methodology in conducting a systematic review of systematic reviews of healthcare interventions. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2011;11(1):1–6.
37. Russell R, Chung M, Balk EM, et al. Issues and challenges in conducting systematic reviews to support development of nutrient reference values:workshop summary:nutrition research series, Vol. 2. (US), Rockville (MD):Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2009.
38. Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions:explanation and elaboration.PLoS Medicine.2009;6(7).• Synopsis:Liberati et al. discuss the development of the PRISMA statement which consists of a 27-item checklist and a four-phase flow diagram. The checklist includes items deemed essential for transparent reporting of a systematic review
39. Moher D, Booth A, Stewart L. How to reduce unnecessary duplication:use PROSPERO. Bjog. 2014;121(7):784–786.
40. Straus S, Moher D. Registering systematic reviews. Cmaj. 2010;182(1):13–14.
41. Bouter LM. Commentary:perverse incentives or rotten apples? Account Res. 2015;22(3):148–161.
42. http://systematicreviewtools.com/tool.
43. Critical Reviews Advisory Group. Introduction to systematic reviews. [http://​www.​shef.​ac.​uk/​scharr]
44. Sassi F, Archard L, McDaid D. Searching literature databases for health care economic evaluations:how systematic can we afford to be? Med Care. 2002;40(5):387–394.
45. Glanville J, Kaunelis D, Mensinkai S. How well do search filters perform in identifying economic evaluations in MEDLINE and EMBASE. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2009;25(04):522–529.
46. [www.ispor.org/]
47. [https://colloquium.cochrane.org/]
48. The Joanna Briggs Institute Reviewers’ Manual 2015, Methodology for JBI Scoping Reviews. Adelaide:Joanna Briggs Institute; 2015.
49. HEALTHECON-ALL. [https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A1=ind1604&L=HEALTHECON-ALL]
50. Bramer WM, Mast F, Kleijnen J. Librarian-mediated literature searches for systematic reviews at erasmus MC:much faster but with equal quality. In:European association for health information and libraries conference:2016. Sevilla, Spain; 2016.
51. Brettle AJ, Long AF, Grant MJ, et al. Searching for information on outcomes:do you need to be comprehensive? Qual Health Care. 1998;7(3):163–167.
52. The InterTASC Information Specialists’ Sub-Group Search Filter Resource [https://sites.google.com/a/york.ac.uk/issg-search-filters-resource/home]
53. Sampson MMJ, Lefebvre C. An evidence-based checklist for the peer review of electronic search strategies PRESS:Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies. Ottawa:EBC CAfD; 2008.
54. CADTH Peer Review Checklist for Search Strategies. PRESS:peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies. [http://www.cadth.ca/en/publication/781]
55. Bramer W, Milic J, Mast F. Reviewing retrieved references for inclusion in systematic reviews using endNote. J Med Lib Assoc. accepted for publication.
56. Yoshii A, Plaut DA, McGraw KA, et al. Analysis of the reporting of search strategies in Cochrane systematic reviews. J Med Lib Association:JMLA. 2009;97(1):21–29.
57. Bramer W, Holland L, Mollema J, et al. Removing duplicates in retrieval sets from electronic databases:comparing the efficiency and accuracy of the Bramer-method with other methods and software packages. 2014.
58. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses:the PRISMA statementThe PRISMA statement. Ann Intern Med. 2009;151(4):264–269.
59. Mlika-Cabanne N, Harbour R, De Beer H, et al. Sharing hard labour:developing a standard template for data summaries in guideline development. BMJ Qual Saf. 2011;20(2):141–145.
60. Briggs AH, Weinstein MC, Fenwick EA, et al. Force I-SMGRPT:model parameter estimation and uncertainty:a report of the ISPOR-SMDM modeling good research practices task force-6. Value in Health. 2012;15(6):835–842.
61. Brown GW. On small-sample estimation. Ann Math Stat. 1947;18::582–585.
62. Adarkwah CC, Van Gils PF, Hiligsmann M. etal. Risk of bias in model-based economic evaluations:the ECOBIAS checklist. Exp Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2015;1–11.
63. Evers SM, Hiligsmann M, Adarkwah CC. Risk of bias in trial-based economic evaluations:identification of sources and bias-reducing strategies. Psychol Health. 2015;30(1):52–71.
64. Rennie D, Flanagin A. Publication bias:the triumph of hope over experience. Jama. 1992;267(3):411–412.
65. Rennie D, Luft HS. Pharmacoeconomic analyses:making them transparent, making them credible. Jama. 2000;283(16):2158–2160.
66. Caro JJ, Eddy DM, Kan H, et al. Questionnaire to assess relevance and credibility of modeling studies for informing health care decision making:an ISPOR-AMCP-NPC good practice task force report. Value in Health. 2014;17(2):174–182.
67. Consensus Health Economic Criteria - CHEC list [https://hsr.mumc.maastrichtuniversity.nl/consensus-health-economic-criteria-chec-list]
68. Evers S, Goossens M, De Vet H, et al. Criteria list for assessment of methodological quality of economic evaluations:consensus on health economic criteria. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2005;21(02):240–245.
69. Odnoletkova I, Goderis G, Pil L, et al. 2014. Cost-effectiveness of therapeutic education to prevent the development and progression of type 2 diabetes:systematic review. J Diabetes Metab 5:438. doi:10.4172/2155-6156.1000438
70. Drummond MF, Jefferson. Guidelines for authors and peer reviewers of economic submissions to the BMJ. 1996;313(7052):275–283.
71. Philips Z, Bojke L, Sculpher M, et al. Good practice guidelines for decision-analytic modelling in health technology assessment. Pharmacoeconomics. 2006;24(4):355–371.
72. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist GE, et al. GRADE:an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. Bmj. 2008;336(7650):924–926.
73. Brunetti M, Shemilt I, Pregno S, et al. GRADE guidelines:10. Considering resource use and rating the quality of economic evidence. J Clin Epidemiol. 2013;66(2):140–150.
74. Developing NICE guidelines:the manual appendix H. [https://www.nice.org.uk/article/PMG21/chapter/Appendix-H-Appraisal-checklists-evidence-tables-GRADE-and-economic-profiles]
75. Currie G, Manns B. Glossary of terms for health economics and systematic reviews. In:Donaldson C, Mugford M, Vale L, Editors. Evidence-based health economics:from effectiveness tot efficiency in systematic review. London:BMJ Books; 2002.
76. Drummond M, Barbieri M, Cook J, et al. Transferability of economic evaluations across jurisdictions:ISPOR good research practices task force report. Value Health. 2009;12(4):409–418.
77. Walker DG, Teerawattananon Y, Anderson A, et al. Generalizability, transferability, complexity and relevance. In:Shemilt I, Mugford M, Vale L, et al., Editors. Evidence-based desisions and economics. 2 nd ed. Chichester:Blackwell Publishing; 2010.
78. Welte R, Feenstra T, Jager H, et al. A decision chart for assessing and improving the transferability of economic evaluation results between countries. Pharmacoeconomics. 2004;22(13):857–876.
79. Mauskopf J, Rutten F, Schonfeld W. Cost-effectiveness league tables. PharmacoEconomics. 2012;21(14):991–1000.
80. CCEMG - EPPI-Centre Cost Converter [http://eppi.ioe.ac.uk/costconversion/default.aspx]
81. Hill SR, Olson LG, Falck-Ytter Y, et al. Incorporating considerations of cost-effectiveness, affordability, and resource implications in guideline development:article 6 in integrating and coordinating efforts in COPD guideline development. An official ATS/ERS workshop report. Proc Am Thorac Soc. 2012;9(5):251–255.
82. Nixon J, Khan KS, Kleijnen J. Summarising economic evaluations in systematic reviews:a new approach. Bmj. 2001;322(7302):1596–1598.
83. Knies S, Ament AJ, Evers SM, et al. The transferability of economic evaluations:testing the model of Welte. Value Health. 2009;12(5):730–738.
84. De kinderen RJ, Lambrechts DAJE, Wijnen BFM, et al. An economic evaluation of the ketogenic diet versus care as usual in children and adolescents with intractable epilepsy:An interim analysis. Epilepsia. 2016;57(1):41–50.
85. Search Filter Resource. [[https://sites.google.com/a/york.ac.uk/issg-search-filters-resource/home]]
86. Drummond MF, Jefferson T. Guidelines for authors and peer reviewers of economic submissions to the BMJ. Bmj. 1996;313(7052):275–283.
87. Brunetti M, Ruiz F, Lord J, et al. Grading economic evidence. In:evidence-based decisions and economics. Shemilt I, Mugford M, Vale L, et al., Editors. Oxford:Wiley-Blackwell; 2010.