English   español  
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/10261/161607
Share/Impact:
Statistics
logo share SHARE logo core CORE   Add this article to your Mendeley library MendeleyBASE

Visualizar otros formatos: MARC | Dublin Core | RDF | ORE | MODS | METS | DIDL
Exportar a otros formatos:

DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorCatalá-López, Ferrán-
dc.contributor.authorAlonso-Arroyo, Adolfo-
dc.contributor.authorAleixandre-Benavent, Rafael-
dc.date.accessioned2018-03-02T13:26:48Z-
dc.date.available2018-03-02T13:26:48Z-
dc.date.issued2016-
dc.identifierdoi: 10.1186/s13643-015-0181-5-
dc.identifiere-issn: 2046-4053-
dc.identifier.citationSystematic Reviews 5: 6 (2016)-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10261/161607-
dc.descriptionOpen Access; Open Peer Review.-- et al.-
dc.description.abstract[Background]: Cost-effectiveness analysis has been recognized as an important tool to determine the efficiency of healthcare interventions and services. There is a need for evaluating the reporting of methods and results of cost-effectiveness analyses and establishing their validity. We describe and examine reporting characteristics of methods and results of cost-effectiveness analyses conducted in Spain during more than two decades. [Methods]: A methodological systematic review was conducted with the information obtained through an updated literature review in PubMed and complementary databases (e.g. Scopus, ISI Web of Science, National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database (NHS EED) and Health Technology Assessment (HTA) databases from Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD), Índice Médico Español (IME) Índice Bibliográfico Español en Ciencias de la Salud (IBECS)). We identified cost-effectiveness analyses conducted in Spain that used quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) as outcome measures (period 1989-December 2014). Two reviewers independently extracted the data from each paper. The data were analysed descriptively. [Results]: In total, 223 studies were included. Very few studies (10; 4.5 %) reported working from a protocol. Most studies (200; 89.7 %) were simulation models and included a median of 1000 patients. Only 105 (47.1 %) studies presented an adequate description of the characteristics of the target population. Most study interventions were categorized as therapeutic (189; 84.8 %) and nearly half (111; 49.8 %) considered an active alternative as the comparator. Effectiveness of data was derived from a single study in 87 (39.0 %) reports, and only few (40; 17.9 %) used evidence synthesis-based estimates. Few studies (42; 18.8 %) reported a full description of methods for QALY calculation. The majority of the studies (147; 65.9 %) reported that the study intervention produced >more costs and more QALYs> than the comparator. Most studies (200; 89.7 %) reported favourable conclusions. Main funding source was the private for-profit sector (135; 60.5 %). Conflicts of interest were not disclosed in 88 (39.5 %) studies. [Conclusions]: This methodological review reflects that reporting of several important aspects of methods and results are frequently missing in published cost-effectiveness analyses. Without full and transparent reporting of how studies were designed and conducted, it is difficult to assess the validity of study findings and conclusions.-
dc.description.sponsorshipFC-L and RT-S are partially funded by Generalitat Valenciana (PROMETEOII/2015/021), INCLIVA and Institute of Health Carlos III/CIBERSAM. MR, EB-D and SP are partially funded by the Spanish Health Services Research on Chronic Patients Network (REDISSEC). BH is supported by a New Investigator Award from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and the Drug Safety and Effectiveness Network.-
dc.publisherBioMed Central-
dc.relation.isversionofPublisher's version-
dc.rightsopenAccess-
dc.subjectSpain-
dc.subjectReporting-
dc.subjectMethodology-
dc.subjectCost-utility analysis-
dc.subjectCost-effectiveness analysis-
dc.subjectQuality-adjusted life years-
dc.titleThe quality of reporting methods and results of cost-effectiveness analyses in Spain: a methodological systematic review-
dc.typeartículo-
dc.relation.publisherversionhttps://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-015-0181-5-
dc.date.updated2018-03-02T13:26:48Z-
dc.description.versionPeer Reviewed-
dc.language.rfc3066eng-
dc.rights.licensehttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/-
dc.contributor.funderCanadian Institutes of Health Research-
dc.contributor.funderInstituto de Salud Carlos III-
dc.contributor.funderInstituto de Salud Carlos III-
dc.contributor.funderGeneralitat Valenciana-
dc.relation.csic-
dc.identifier.funderhttp://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100000024es_ES
dc.identifier.funderhttp://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100004587es_ES
dc.identifier.funderhttp://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100003359es_ES
Appears in Collections:(INGENIO) Artículos
Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
reviewsystem.pdf428,81 kBAdobe PDFThumbnail
View/Open
Show simple item record
 

Related articles:


WARNING: Items in Digital.CSIC are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.