对日本已报销医疗器械的成本效益评估进行务实审查。

IF 2.9 4区 医学 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Journal of Medical Economics Pub Date : 2024-01-01 Epub Date: 2024-11-04 DOI:10.1080/13696998.2024.2420542
Michael LoPresti, Ataru Igarashi
{"title":"对日本已报销医疗器械的成本效益评估进行务实审查。","authors":"Michael LoPresti, Ataru Igarashi","doi":"10.1080/13696998.2024.2420542","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aims: </strong>The aim of this study is to examine the characteristics and quality of economic evaluations for reimbursed medical devices in Japan.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>A pragmatic review of cost-effectiveness evaluations (CEA) and other economic evaluations for medical devices reimbursed in Japan published between January 2010 and December 2023 was conducted using the PubMed (Medline), Japan Medical Abstracts Society (ICHUSHI Web), and the Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry of the Tufts Medical Center databases-as well as Google Scholar. Evaluations for devices assessed under the health technology assessment system in Japan were also reviewed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Thirty-nine published studies were included with 20 studies (51%) for devices used to treat cardiovascular conditions, 7 studies (18%) for devices used to treat neurological/neurovascular conditions and orthopedic conditions, respectively, and 5 studies (13%) for devices used to treat other types of conditions. The number of published studies for reimbursed medical devices increased from 2017. Nearly 60% of the studies were cost-utility analyses and many were cost-consequence analyses (26%). Although the quality of the studies conducted were good, lack of data was mentioned as a key limitation of nearly all studies-with limited data in general (33%), lack of long-term outcomes data (33%), and lack data for Japan (21%) being key issues. Moreover, lack of cost data was mentioned as a limitation for nearly half (49%) of studies.</p><p><strong>Limitations: </strong>As this was not a systematic literature review, some relevant studies may have been excluded. Moreover, some databases that are known to cover other journals were not used.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Despite concerns about lack of sufficient outcomes data, good quality CEAs have been published for reimbursed devices in Japan. However, lack of data may still be an issue and the impact of the learning curve effect on cost-effectiveness may need to be considered more.</p>","PeriodicalId":16229,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Medical Economics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A pragmatic review of cost-effectiveness evaluations of reimbursed medical devices conducted for Japan.\",\"authors\":\"Michael LoPresti, Ataru Igarashi\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/13696998.2024.2420542\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Aims: </strong>The aim of this study is to examine the characteristics and quality of economic evaluations for reimbursed medical devices in Japan.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>A pragmatic review of cost-effectiveness evaluations (CEA) and other economic evaluations for medical devices reimbursed in Japan published between January 2010 and December 2023 was conducted using the PubMed (Medline), Japan Medical Abstracts Society (ICHUSHI Web), and the Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry of the Tufts Medical Center databases-as well as Google Scholar. Evaluations for devices assessed under the health technology assessment system in Japan were also reviewed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Thirty-nine published studies were included with 20 studies (51%) for devices used to treat cardiovascular conditions, 7 studies (18%) for devices used to treat neurological/neurovascular conditions and orthopedic conditions, respectively, and 5 studies (13%) for devices used to treat other types of conditions. The number of published studies for reimbursed medical devices increased from 2017. Nearly 60% of the studies were cost-utility analyses and many were cost-consequence analyses (26%). Although the quality of the studies conducted were good, lack of data was mentioned as a key limitation of nearly all studies-with limited data in general (33%), lack of long-term outcomes data (33%), and lack data for Japan (21%) being key issues. Moreover, lack of cost data was mentioned as a limitation for nearly half (49%) of studies.</p><p><strong>Limitations: </strong>As this was not a systematic literature review, some relevant studies may have been excluded. Moreover, some databases that are known to cover other journals were not used.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Despite concerns about lack of sufficient outcomes data, good quality CEAs have been published for reimbursed devices in Japan. However, lack of data may still be an issue and the impact of the learning curve effect on cost-effectiveness may need to be considered more.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":16229,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Medical Economics\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Medical Economics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/13696998.2024.2420542\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/11/4 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Medical Economics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13696998.2024.2420542","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/11/4 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:本研究旨在探讨日本报销医疗器械经济评价的特点和质量:使用 PubMed (Medline)、日本医学文摘社 (ICHUSHI Web) 和塔夫茨医学中心成本效益分析注册数据库以及 Google Scholar,对 2010 年 1 月至 2023 年 12 月期间发表的日本报销医疗器械的成本效益评估 (CEA) 和其他经济评估进行了务实性审查。此外,还查阅了根据日本卫生技术评估(HTA)系统对器械进行的评估:结果:共纳入 39 项已发表的研究,其中 20 项研究(51%)涉及用于治疗心血管疾病的器械,7 项研究(18%)分别涉及用于治疗神经/神经血管疾病和骨科疾病的器械,5 项研究(13%)涉及用于治疗其他类型疾病的器械。与 2017 年相比,针对报销医疗器械发表的研究数量有所增加。近 60% 的研究是成本效用分析,许多研究是成本后果分析(26%)。虽然所进行的研究质量良好,但几乎所有研究都提到数据缺乏是一个主要限制因素--一般数据有限(33%)、缺乏长期结果数据(33%)和缺乏日本数据(21%)是关键问题。此外,近一半(49%)的研究提到缺乏成本数据是一个限制因素:由于这不是一次系统的文献综述,一些相关研究可能被排除在外。此外,一些已知涵盖其他期刊的数据库也未被使用:尽管缺乏足够的结果数据令人担忧,但日本已发表了高质量的关于报销设备的 CEA 研究。然而,缺乏数据可能仍然是一个问题,而且可能需要更多地考虑学习曲线效应对成本效益的影响。
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
A pragmatic review of cost-effectiveness evaluations of reimbursed medical devices conducted for Japan.

Aims: The aim of this study is to examine the characteristics and quality of economic evaluations for reimbursed medical devices in Japan.

Materials and methods: A pragmatic review of cost-effectiveness evaluations (CEA) and other economic evaluations for medical devices reimbursed in Japan published between January 2010 and December 2023 was conducted using the PubMed (Medline), Japan Medical Abstracts Society (ICHUSHI Web), and the Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry of the Tufts Medical Center databases-as well as Google Scholar. Evaluations for devices assessed under the health technology assessment system in Japan were also reviewed.

Results: Thirty-nine published studies were included with 20 studies (51%) for devices used to treat cardiovascular conditions, 7 studies (18%) for devices used to treat neurological/neurovascular conditions and orthopedic conditions, respectively, and 5 studies (13%) for devices used to treat other types of conditions. The number of published studies for reimbursed medical devices increased from 2017. Nearly 60% of the studies were cost-utility analyses and many were cost-consequence analyses (26%). Although the quality of the studies conducted were good, lack of data was mentioned as a key limitation of nearly all studies-with limited data in general (33%), lack of long-term outcomes data (33%), and lack data for Japan (21%) being key issues. Moreover, lack of cost data was mentioned as a limitation for nearly half (49%) of studies.

Limitations: As this was not a systematic literature review, some relevant studies may have been excluded. Moreover, some databases that are known to cover other journals were not used.

Conclusions: Despite concerns about lack of sufficient outcomes data, good quality CEAs have been published for reimbursed devices in Japan. However, lack of data may still be an issue and the impact of the learning curve effect on cost-effectiveness may need to be considered more.

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
Journal of Medical Economics
Journal of Medical Economics HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES-MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
CiteScore
4.50
自引率
4.20%
发文量
122
期刊介绍: Journal of Medical Economics'' mission is to provide ethical, unbiased and rapid publication of quality content that is validated by rigorous peer review. The aim of Journal of Medical Economics is to serve the information needs of the pharmacoeconomics and healthcare research community, to help translate research advances into patient care and be a leader in transparency/disclosure by facilitating a collaborative and honest approach to publication. Journal of Medical Economics publishes high-quality economic assessments of novel therapeutic and device interventions for an international audience
期刊最新文献
Transcatheter aortic valve replacement and the value of increasing treatment for severe symptomatic aortic stenosis: a plain language summary. Employment status of multiple sclerosis patients in Japan. Relationship between a diagnosis of kidney failure and heart diseases in patients with hyperkalaemia. Matching-adjusted indirect comparison of Acalabrutinib versus Ibrutinib in relapsed/refractory mantle cell lymphoma. Cost-effectiveness analysis of a lung cancer screening program in the netherlands: a simulation based on NELSON and NLST study outcomes.
×
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