Economic evaluations in medical technological innovations a mapping review of methodologies.

IF 1.7 4区 医学 Q3 HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation Pub Date : 2024-03-19 DOI:10.1186/s12962-024-00529-0
C van Lieshout, G W J Frederix, L Schoonhoven
{"title":"Economic evaluations in medical technological innovations a mapping review of methodologies.","authors":"C van Lieshout, G W J Frederix, L Schoonhoven","doi":"10.1186/s12962-024-00529-0","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Rationale: </strong>Economic evaluations play an important role in the development and implementation of healthcare innovations. For pharmaceutical products, the methodologies used are laid down in guidelines, whereas for medical technologies the guidelines are not as strenuous. The aim of this review was therefore to analyze what types of methodologies are used in economic evaluations of medical technologies.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We performed a mapping review to identify economic evaluations for medical technologies. We decided to limit our search to one year (2022) and included cost utility and cost effectiveness analyses in which health technologies were evaluated. For each included study we identified the main methodological characteristics.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 364 papers were included in the analysis, 268 (74%) contained cost-utility analyses and 91 (25%) cost-effectiveness analyses. A model was used in 236 (64%) analyses, 117 analyses were trial based evaluations. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses and/or bootstrapping was performed in 266 (73%) analyses. Deterministic sensitivity analyses were used in 306 (84%). Time horizon and perspective were underreported in 15-25% of the included studies.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This review shows the wide range of methodologies used in economic evaluations as well as the extent and rigor in which these methodologies are used. Many of the included papers did no use or did not sufficiently report the use of appropriate standard methods. This may lead to research waste, a delay in successful implementation of valuable innovations and in the end may delay improvement patient outcomes.</p>","PeriodicalId":47054,"journal":{"name":"Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10953233/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12962-024-00529-0","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Rationale: Economic evaluations play an important role in the development and implementation of healthcare innovations. For pharmaceutical products, the methodologies used are laid down in guidelines, whereas for medical technologies the guidelines are not as strenuous. The aim of this review was therefore to analyze what types of methodologies are used in economic evaluations of medical technologies.

Methods: We performed a mapping review to identify economic evaluations for medical technologies. We decided to limit our search to one year (2022) and included cost utility and cost effectiveness analyses in which health technologies were evaluated. For each included study we identified the main methodological characteristics.

Results: A total of 364 papers were included in the analysis, 268 (74%) contained cost-utility analyses and 91 (25%) cost-effectiveness analyses. A model was used in 236 (64%) analyses, 117 analyses were trial based evaluations. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses and/or bootstrapping was performed in 266 (73%) analyses. Deterministic sensitivity analyses were used in 306 (84%). Time horizon and perspective were underreported in 15-25% of the included studies.

Conclusions: This review shows the wide range of methodologies used in economic evaluations as well as the extent and rigor in which these methodologies are used. Many of the included papers did no use or did not sufficiently report the use of appropriate standard methods. This may lead to research waste, a delay in successful implementation of valuable innovations and in the end may delay improvement patient outcomes.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
医疗技术创新的经济评估方法图谱审查。
理由:经济评估在开发和实施医疗创新方面发挥着重要作用。对于医药产品而言,所使用的方法已在指南中有所规定,而对于医疗技术而言,指南的规定并不严格。因此,本综述旨在分析医疗技术经济评估中使用的方法类型:我们进行了一次摸底审查,以确定医疗技术的经济评估。我们决定将搜索范围限制在一年内(2022 年),并纳入了对医疗技术进行评估的成本效用和成本效益分析。对于每项纳入的研究,我们都确定了其主要方法学特征:共有 364 篇论文被纳入分析,其中 268 篇(74%)包含成本效用分析,91 篇(25%)包含成本效益分析。236项(64%)分析使用了模型,117项分析是基于试验的评估。在 266 项(73%)分析中进行了概率敏感性分析和/或引导分析。306项(84%)分析采用了确定性敏感性分析。15%-25%的纳入研究未充分报告时间跨度和视角:本综述显示了经济评价中使用的各种方法,以及使用这些方法的程度和严谨性。许多被纳入的论文没有使用或没有充分报告适当标准方法的使用情况。这可能会造成研究浪费,延误有价值创新的成功实施,最终可能会延误患者治疗效果的改善。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation
Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES-
CiteScore
3.40
自引率
4.30%
发文量
59
审稿时长
34 weeks
期刊介绍: Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation is an Open Access, peer-reviewed, online journal that considers manuscripts on all aspects of cost-effectiveness analysis, including conceptual or methodological work, economic evaluations, and policy analysis related to resource allocation at a national or international level. Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation is aimed at health economists, health services researchers, and policy-makers with an interest in enhancing the flow and transfer of knowledge relating to efficiency in the health sector. Manuscripts are encouraged from researchers based in low- and middle-income countries, with a view to increasing the international economic evidence base for health.
期刊最新文献
Exploring the potential cost-effectiveness of a new computerised decision support tool for identifying fetal compromise during monitored term labours: an early health economic model. Financial incentives in the management of diabetes: a systematic review. Economic evaluation of NALIRIFOX vs. nab-paclitaxel and gemcitabine regimens for first-line treatment of metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma from U.S. perspective. The costs of implementing anaemia reduction interventions among women fish processors in Ghana. Global bibliometric analysis of cost effectiveness analysis in healthcare research from 2013 to 2023.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1