Empirical Testing of Alternative Search Methods to Retrieve Utility Values for Health Economic Modelling.

IF 4.4 3区 医学 Q1 ECONOMICS PharmacoEconomics Pub Date : 2024-11-01 Epub Date: 2024-08-06 DOI:10.1007/s40273-024-01414-7
Johanna Lister, Suzy Paisley, Christopher Carroll, Paul Tappenden
{"title":"Empirical Testing of Alternative Search Methods to Retrieve Utility Values for Health Economic Modelling.","authors":"Johanna Lister, Suzy Paisley, Christopher Carroll, Paul Tappenden","doi":"10.1007/s40273-024-01414-7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>The objective of this study is to compare different information retrieval methods that can be used to identify utility inputs for health economic models.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The usual practice of using systematic review methods was compared with two alternatives (iterative searching and rapid review), using a health technology assessment (HTA) case study in ulcerative colitis (UC). We analysed whether there were differences in the utility values identified when using the alternative search methods. Success was evaluated in terms of time, burden and relevance of identified information. The identified utility values were tested in an executable health economic model developed for UC, and the model results were compared.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The usual practice of using systematic review search approaches identified the most publications but was also the least precise method and took longest to complete. The inclusion of data from the different search methods in the model did not lead to different conclusions across search methods.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In this case study, usual practice was less efficient and resulted in the same health economic model conclusions as the alternative search methods. Further case studies are required to examine whether this conclusion might be generalisable.</p>","PeriodicalId":19807,"journal":{"name":"PharmacoEconomics","volume":" ","pages":"1255-1266"},"PeriodicalIF":4.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"PharmacoEconomics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-024-01414-7","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/8/6 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: The objective of this study is to compare different information retrieval methods that can be used to identify utility inputs for health economic models.

Methods: The usual practice of using systematic review methods was compared with two alternatives (iterative searching and rapid review), using a health technology assessment (HTA) case study in ulcerative colitis (UC). We analysed whether there were differences in the utility values identified when using the alternative search methods. Success was evaluated in terms of time, burden and relevance of identified information. The identified utility values were tested in an executable health economic model developed for UC, and the model results were compared.

Results: The usual practice of using systematic review search approaches identified the most publications but was also the least precise method and took longest to complete. The inclusion of data from the different search methods in the model did not lead to different conclusions across search methods.

Conclusions: In this case study, usual practice was less efficient and resulted in the same health economic model conclusions as the alternative search methods. Further case studies are required to examine whether this conclusion might be generalisable.

Abstract Image

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
为健康经济模型检索效用值的其他搜索方法的经验测试。
研究目的本研究旨在比较可用于确定卫生经济模型效用输入的不同信息检索方法:方法:通过对溃疡性结肠炎(UC)的健康技术评估(HTA)案例研究,比较了使用系统综述方法的常规做法和两种替代方法(迭代检索和快速综述)。我们分析了使用替代检索方法所确定的效用值是否存在差异。我们从时间、负担和已识别信息的相关性等方面评估了搜索的成功率。在为 UC 开发的可执行健康经济模型中测试了所确定的效用值,并对模型结果进行了比较:结果:使用系统综述检索方法的通常做法能识别出最多的出版物,但也是最不精确的方法,且耗时最长。将不同检索方法的数据纳入模型并不会导致不同检索方法得出不同的结论:在本案例研究中,常规方法的效率较低,与其他搜索方法得出的健康经济模型结论相同。需要进一步开展案例研究,以考察这一结论是否具有普遍性。
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
PharmacoEconomics
PharmacoEconomics 医学-药学
CiteScore
8.10
自引率
9.10%
发文量
85
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: PharmacoEconomics is the benchmark journal for peer-reviewed, authoritative and practical articles on the application of pharmacoeconomics and quality-of-life assessment to optimum drug therapy and health outcomes. An invaluable source of applied pharmacoeconomic original research and educational material for the healthcare decision maker. PharmacoEconomics is dedicated to the clear communication of complex pharmacoeconomic issues related to patient care and drug utilization. PharmacoEconomics offers a range of additional features designed to increase the visibility, readership and educational value of the journal’s content. Each article is accompanied by a Key Points summary, giving a time-efficient overview of the content to a wide readership. Articles may be accompanied by plain language summaries to assist readers who have some knowledge of, but not in-depth expertise in, the area to understand the scientific content and overall implications of the article.
期刊最新文献
Cost and Cost Effectiveness of Treatments for Psoriatic Arthritis: An Updated Systematic Literature Review. Effects and Costs of Hepatitis C Virus Elimination for the Whole Population in China: A Modelling Study. MPES-R: Multi-Parameter Evidence Synthesis in R for Survival Extrapolation-A Tutorial. Different Models, Same Results: Considerations When Choosing Between Approaches to Model Cost Effectiveness of Chimeric-Antigen Receptor T-Cell Therapy Versus Standard of Care. Evidence Following Conditional NICE Technology Appraisal Recommendations: A Critical Analysis of Methods, Quality and Risk of Bias.
×
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