Utility Values of Health Status in Gastric Cancer: A Systematic Review

IF 1.5 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Value in health regional issues Pub Date : 2025-03-01 Epub Date: 2025-02-01 DOI:10.1016/j.vhri.2024.101063
Cristian Gonzalez MA , Manuel Espinoza PhD , Matías Libuy MA , Francisca Crispi MA , Arnoldo Riquelme MD , Fernando Alarid-Escudero PhD , Gonzalo Latorre MD , Margarita Pizarro MD , Cristóbal Cuadrado PhD
{"title":"Utility Values of Health Status in Gastric Cancer: A Systematic Review","authors":"Cristian Gonzalez MA ,&nbsp;Manuel Espinoza PhD ,&nbsp;Matías Libuy MA ,&nbsp;Francisca Crispi MA ,&nbsp;Arnoldo Riquelme MD ,&nbsp;Fernando Alarid-Escudero PhD ,&nbsp;Gonzalo Latorre MD ,&nbsp;Margarita Pizarro MD ,&nbsp;Cristóbal Cuadrado PhD","doi":"10.1016/j.vhri.2024.101063","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objectives</h3><div>Gastric cancer (GC) imposes a significant burden of disease globally. Multiple treatments are available but are associated with high costs and potentially detrimental effects on quality of life. The utility values of health status are measures of patient preference over quality of life, which are increasingly used for health and economic decision-making. Currently, there is little systematized information on the utility values for different stages of GC. This systematic review synthesizes and meta-analyses the literature on GC utilities.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>A search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, MEDLINE, and Cochrane Library for studies reporting utility values calculated using direct and indirect methods. Information from the selected studies was extracted and appraised, and meta-analyses of utility values based on GC health states were performed.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Twelve studies involving 4585 patients were included. Random-effects meta-analysis estimates showed a mean utility of 0.77 (95% CI 0.7–0.85) for stage I, 0.75 (95% CI 0.65–0.85) for stage II, 0.70 (95% CI 0.63–0.96) for stage III, and 0.64 (95% CI 0.56–0.32) for stage IV. All estimates showed considerable heterogeneity.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>Our study provides an updated overview of the literature on utility values in GC and presents a discussion of the relevance of GC stages for its analysis. Decision-makers should consider patients’ preferences in the proposal of policies and clinical decisions.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":23497,"journal":{"name":"Value in health regional issues","volume":"46 ","pages":"Article 101063"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Value in health regional issues","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212109924000967","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/2/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives

Gastric cancer (GC) imposes a significant burden of disease globally. Multiple treatments are available but are associated with high costs and potentially detrimental effects on quality of life. The utility values of health status are measures of patient preference over quality of life, which are increasingly used for health and economic decision-making. Currently, there is little systematized information on the utility values for different stages of GC. This systematic review synthesizes and meta-analyses the literature on GC utilities.

Methods

A search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, MEDLINE, and Cochrane Library for studies reporting utility values calculated using direct and indirect methods. Information from the selected studies was extracted and appraised, and meta-analyses of utility values based on GC health states were performed.

Results

Twelve studies involving 4585 patients were included. Random-effects meta-analysis estimates showed a mean utility of 0.77 (95% CI 0.7–0.85) for stage I, 0.75 (95% CI 0.65–0.85) for stage II, 0.70 (95% CI 0.63–0.96) for stage III, and 0.64 (95% CI 0.56–0.32) for stage IV. All estimates showed considerable heterogeneity.

Conclusions

Our study provides an updated overview of the literature on utility values in GC and presents a discussion of the relevance of GC stages for its analysis. Decision-makers should consider patients’ preferences in the proposal of policies and clinical decisions.
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
健康状况在胃癌中的效用价值:系统综述。
目的:胃癌(GC)在全球范围内造成了重大的疾病负担。有多种治疗方法,但费用高,对生活质量有潜在的不利影响。健康状况的效用值是衡量患者对生活质量的偏好,越来越多地用于健康和经济决策。目前,很少有关于GC不同阶段的效用值的系统化信息。这篇系统综述综合并荟萃分析了有关GC效用的文献。方法:检索PubMed、Embase、MEDLINE和Cochrane图书馆中报告使用直接和间接方法计算效用值的研究。从选定的研究中提取和评估信息,并对基于GC健康状态的效用值进行荟萃分析。结果:纳入12项研究,共4585例患者。随机效应荟萃分析估计显示,第一阶段的平均效用为0.77 (95% CI 0.7-0.85),第二阶段为0.75 (95% CI 0.65-0.85),第三阶段为0.70 (95% CI 0.63-0.96),第四阶段为0.64 (95% CI 0.56-0.32)。所有估计均显示出相当大的异质性。结论:我们的研究提供了关于GC效用值的最新文献综述,并提出了GC阶段相关性分析的讨论。决策者在制定政策和临床决策时应考虑患者的偏好。
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
Value in health regional issues
Value in health regional issues Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics-Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics (miscellaneous)
CiteScore
2.60
自引率
5.00%
发文量
127
期刊最新文献
Hospital Resource Utilization and Associated Costs of Common Hand Fractures in a Large Contemporary Cohort Disinvestment and Health Spending Efficiency in Latin America and the Caribbean: A Case Study of the Dominican Republic Cost Effectiveness of N-terminal Pro B-type Natriuretic Peptide for Evaluation and Management of People With Type 2 Diabetes in the Perspective of Brazilian Private Healthcare System Cost Savings in Oncology Chemotherapy: The Role of Vial Sharing in Centralized Preparation Overuse of Laboratory Tests in Outpatient Care: A Retrospective Cross-Sectional Multilevel Analysis of Patterns, Predictors, and Financial Burden in Iran’s Health Insurance System
×
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:604180095
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