儿科医疗器械的经济评估:文献的系统回顾和质量评估。

IF 1.7 4区 医学 Q3 HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation Pub Date : 2024-04-27 DOI:10.1186/s12962-024-00537-0
Edgar Mascarenhas, Luís Silva Miguel, Mónica D Oliveira, Ricardo M Fernandes
{"title":"儿科医疗器械的经济评估:文献的系统回顾和质量评估。","authors":"Edgar Mascarenhas, Luís Silva Miguel, Mónica D Oliveira, Ricardo M Fernandes","doi":"10.1186/s12962-024-00537-0","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Although economic evaluations (EEs) have been increasingly applied to medical devices, little discussion has been conducted on how the different health realities of specific populations may impact the application of methods and the ensuing results. This is particularly relevant for pediatric populations, as most EEs on devices are conducted in adults, with specific aspects related to the uniqueness of child health often being overlooked. This study provides a review of the published EEs on devices used in paediatrics, assessing the quality of reporting, and summarising methodological challenges.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A systematic literature search was performed to identify peer-reviewed publications on the economic value of devices used in paediatrics in the form of full EEs (comparing both costs and consequences of two or more devices). After the removal of duplicates, article titles and abstracts were screened. The remaining full-text articles were retrieved and assessed for inclusion. In-vitro diagnostic devices were not considered in this review. Study descriptive and methodological characteristics were extracted using a structured template. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) 2022 checklist was used to assess the quality of reporting. A narrative synthesis of the results was conducted followed by a critical discussion on the main challenges found in the literature.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>39 full EEs were eligible for review. Most studies were conducted in high-income countries (67%) and focused on high-risk therapeutic devices (72%). Studies comprised 25 cost-utility analyses, 13 cost-effectiveness analyses and 1 cost-benefit analysis. Most of the studies considered a lifetime horizon (41%) and a health system perspective (36%). Compliance with the CHEERS 2022 items varied among the studies.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Despite the scant body of evidence on EEs focusing on devices in paediatrics results highlight the need to improve the quality of reporting and advance methods that can explicitly incorporate the multiple impacts related to the use of devices with distinct characteristics, as well as consider specific child health realities. The design of innovative participatory approaches and instruments for measuring outcomes meaningful to children and their families should be sought in future research.</p>","PeriodicalId":47054,"journal":{"name":"Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation","volume":"22 1","pages":"33"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11056067/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Economic evaluations of medical devices in paediatrics: a systematic review and a quality appraisal of the literature.\",\"authors\":\"Edgar Mascarenhas, Luís Silva Miguel, Mónica D Oliveira, Ricardo M Fernandes\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s12962-024-00537-0\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Although economic evaluations (EEs) have been increasingly applied to medical devices, little discussion has been conducted on how the different health realities of specific populations may impact the application of methods and the ensuing results. This is particularly relevant for pediatric populations, as most EEs on devices are conducted in adults, with specific aspects related to the uniqueness of child health often being overlooked. This study provides a review of the published EEs on devices used in paediatrics, assessing the quality of reporting, and summarising methodological challenges.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A systematic literature search was performed to identify peer-reviewed publications on the economic value of devices used in paediatrics in the form of full EEs (comparing both costs and consequences of two or more devices). After the removal of duplicates, article titles and abstracts were screened. The remaining full-text articles were retrieved and assessed for inclusion. In-vitro diagnostic devices were not considered in this review. Study descriptive and methodological characteristics were extracted using a structured template. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) 2022 checklist was used to assess the quality of reporting. A narrative synthesis of the results was conducted followed by a critical discussion on the main challenges found in the literature.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>39 full EEs were eligible for review. Most studies were conducted in high-income countries (67%) and focused on high-risk therapeutic devices (72%). Studies comprised 25 cost-utility analyses, 13 cost-effectiveness analyses and 1 cost-benefit analysis. Most of the studies considered a lifetime horizon (41%) and a health system perspective (36%). Compliance with the CHEERS 2022 items varied among the studies.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Despite the scant body of evidence on EEs focusing on devices in paediatrics results highlight the need to improve the quality of reporting and advance methods that can explicitly incorporate the multiple impacts related to the use of devices with distinct characteristics, as well as consider specific child health realities. The design of innovative participatory approaches and instruments for measuring outcomes meaningful to children and their families should be sought in future research.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47054,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation\",\"volume\":\"22 1\",\"pages\":\"33\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11056067/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12962-024-00537-0\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12962-024-00537-0","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

摘要

背景:尽管经济评价(EEs)越来越多地应用于医疗设备,但对于特定人群不同的健康现实如何影响方法的应用和随之而来的结果,却鲜有讨论。这一点与儿科人群尤为相关,因为大多数关于医疗器械的经济效益评估都是针对成年人进行的,而与儿童健康特殊性相关的具体方面往往被忽视。本研究综述了已发表的儿科所用器械的环境评价,评估了报告的质量,并总结了方法学方面的挑战:方法:通过系统的文献检索,以完整 EE(比较两种或两种以上器械的成本和后果)的形式,找出有关儿科器械经济价值的同行评审出版物。在去除重复内容后,对文章标题和摘要进行了筛选。对剩余的全文文章进行检索和评估,以便纳入。体外诊断设备不在本次综述考虑之列。采用结构化模板提取研究的描述性特征和方法学特征。合并卫生经济评估报告标准(CHEERS)2022检查表用于评估报告质量。在对结果进行叙述性综合后,对文献中发现的主要挑战进行了批判性讨论:有 39 项完整的预期成果符合审查条件。大多数研究在高收入国家进行(67%),重点关注高风险治疗设备(72%)。研究包括 25 项成本效用分析、13 项成本效益分析和 1 项成本效益分析。大多数研究考虑了终生范围(41%)和卫生系统角度(36%)。各项研究对CHEERS 2022项目的遵守情况各不相同:尽管有关儿科设备的环境影响的证据很少,但研究结果突出表明,有必要提高报告质量,并改进方法,以明确纳入与使用具有独特特征的设备有关的多种影响,并考虑具体的儿童健康现实。在今后的研究中,应寻求设计创新的参与式方法和工具,以衡量对儿童及其家庭有意义的成果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Economic evaluations of medical devices in paediatrics: a systematic review and a quality appraisal of the literature.

Background: Although economic evaluations (EEs) have been increasingly applied to medical devices, little discussion has been conducted on how the different health realities of specific populations may impact the application of methods and the ensuing results. This is particularly relevant for pediatric populations, as most EEs on devices are conducted in adults, with specific aspects related to the uniqueness of child health often being overlooked. This study provides a review of the published EEs on devices used in paediatrics, assessing the quality of reporting, and summarising methodological challenges.

Methods: A systematic literature search was performed to identify peer-reviewed publications on the economic value of devices used in paediatrics in the form of full EEs (comparing both costs and consequences of two or more devices). After the removal of duplicates, article titles and abstracts were screened. The remaining full-text articles were retrieved and assessed for inclusion. In-vitro diagnostic devices were not considered in this review. Study descriptive and methodological characteristics were extracted using a structured template. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) 2022 checklist was used to assess the quality of reporting. A narrative synthesis of the results was conducted followed by a critical discussion on the main challenges found in the literature.

Results: 39 full EEs were eligible for review. Most studies were conducted in high-income countries (67%) and focused on high-risk therapeutic devices (72%). Studies comprised 25 cost-utility analyses, 13 cost-effectiveness analyses and 1 cost-benefit analysis. Most of the studies considered a lifetime horizon (41%) and a health system perspective (36%). Compliance with the CHEERS 2022 items varied among the studies.

Conclusions: Despite the scant body of evidence on EEs focusing on devices in paediatrics results highlight the need to improve the quality of reporting and advance methods that can explicitly incorporate the multiple impacts related to the use of devices with distinct characteristics, as well as consider specific child health realities. The design of innovative participatory approaches and instruments for measuring outcomes meaningful to children and their families should be sought in future research.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 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
Assessing diagnosis-related groups based direct medical expenditures of chronic disease patients in general hospital of lower southern Thailand. Health system efficiency and equity in ASEAN: an empirical investigation. Coverage and distributional benefit-cost of rotavirus vaccine in Uganda: an analysis of routine health facility aggregated data. Cost-effectiveness of fenofibrate for preventing diabetic complications in Australia. Cost-effectiveness of high-dose vitamin D supplementation to reduce the occurrence of repeat episodes of pneumonia in children.
×
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