Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T19:21:42.613Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS OF ECONOMIC EVALUATIONS: HOW EXTENSIVE ARE THEIR SEARCHES?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2017

Hannah Wood ,
Mick Arber  and
Julie M. Glanville Open the ORCID record for Julie M. Glanville [Opens in a new window]
Hannah Wood
Affiliation:
York Health Economics Consortium Ltd Enterprise House, Innovation Way, University of Yorkhannah.wood@york.ac.uk
Mick Arber
Affiliation:
York Health Economics Consortium Ltd Enterprise House, Innovation Way, University of York
Julie M. Glanville
Affiliation:
York Health Economics Consortium Ltd Enterprise House, Innovation Way, University of York
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objectives: Economic evaluation (EE) is an accepted element of decision making and priority setting in healthcare. As the number of published EEs grows, so does the number of systematic reviews (SRs) of EEs. Although search methodology makes an important contribution to SR quality, search methods in reviews of EEs have not been evaluated in detail. We investigated the resources used to identify studies in recent, published SRs of EEs, and assessed whether the resources reflected recommendations.

Methods: We searched MEDLINE for SRs of EEs published since January 2013 and extracted the following from eligible reviews: databases searched, health technology assessment (HTA) sources searched, supplementary search techniques used. Results were compared against the minimum search resources recommended by National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) (MEDLINE, Embase, NHS EED, EconLit) for economic evidence for single technology appraisals, and resource types suggested in the summary of current best evidence from SuRe Info (economic databases, general databases, HTA databases, HTA agency Web pages, gray literature).

Results: Sixty-five SRs met the inclusion criteria; data were extracted from forty-two. Five reviews (12 percent) met or exceeded the NICE recommended resources. Nine reviews (21 percent) searched at least four of the five types of resource recommended by SuRe Info. Five reviews (12 percent) searched all five. Twenty-three reviews (55 percent) did not meet the NICE recommendations or four of five of the SuRe Info recommended resource types. Search reporting was frequently unclear or incorrect.

Conclusions: Searches conducted for the majority of recently published SRs of EEs do not meet two published approaches.

Keywords

Cost-benefit analysisInformation storage and retrievalDatabasesBibliographic
Type
Assessments
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 33 , Issue 1 , 2017 , pp. 25 - 31
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1. Kanuelis, D, Glanville, J. Summarized research information retrieval for HTA (SuRE Info) Costs and economic evaluation [webpage]. HTAi Vortal2014 [updated 31 March 31, 2015]. Available from: http://vortal.htai.org/?q=node/336. (accessed March 1, 2016).Google Scholar
2. Jefferson, T, Demicheli, V, Vale, L. Quality of systematic reviews of economic evaluations in health care. JAMA. 2002;287:2809-2812.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3. Alton, V, Eckerlund, I, Norlund, A. Health economic evaluations: How to find them. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2006;22:512-517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4. Royle, P, Waugh, N. Literature searching for clinical and cost-effectiveness studies used in health technology assessment reports carried out for the National Institute for Clinical Excellence appraisal system. Health Technol Assess. 2003;7:iii, ix-x, 1–51.Google Scholar
5. Sassi, F, Archard, L, McDaid, D. Searching literature databases for health care economic evaluations: How systematic can we afford to be? Med Care. 2002;40:387–394.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6. National Institute For Health and Care Excellence. Single technology appraisal (STA). Specification for manufacture/sponsor submission of evidence. London: NICE, 2012.Google Scholar
7. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Medical technologies evaluation programme. Sponsor's submission template. London: NICE, 2013.Google Scholar
8. University of York Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD). Search strategies [webpage]. York: CRD; 2015. Available from: http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/crdweb/searchstrategies.asp (accessed August 10, 2015).Google Scholar
9. Golder, S, Loke, YK, Zorzela, L. Comparison of search strategies in systematic reviews of adverse effects to other systematic reviews. Health Info Libr J. 2014;31:92–105.Google Scholar
10. Cochrane Editorial Unit. Methodological Expectations of Cochrane Intervention Reviews (MECIR) [updated 31 March 2015]. Available from: http://editorial-unit.cochrane.org/mecir (accessed August 11, 2015).Google Scholar
11. Moher, D, Liberati, A, Tetzlaff, J, Altman, DG, Group, The PRISMA. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. 2009;6:e1000097.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12. University of York Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD). Changes to DARE [webpage]. York 2015. Available from: http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/crdweb/newspage.asp#changesdare (accessed August 11, 2015).Google Scholar
13. Health Economics Evaluations Database (HEED) [Internet]. Available from: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/book/10.1002/9780470510933 (accessed August 11, 2015).Google Scholar
14. Glanville, J, Lefebvre, C, Wright, K. The InterTASC Information Specialists' Sub-Group Search Filter Resource [webpage]. York and Oxford: InterTASC Information Specialists' Sub-Group; 2016. Available from: https://sites.google.com/a/york.ac.uk/issg-search-filters-resource/home (accessed March 1, 2016).Google Scholar
15. Chandler, J, Churchill, R, Higgins, J, Lasserson, T, Tovey, D. Methodological standards for the conduct of new Cochrane Intervention Reviews. Methodological Expectations of Cochrane Intervention Reviews (MECIR). Version 2.3. Cochrane Editorial Unit, 2013. Available from: http://sti.cochrane.org/sites/sti.cochrane.org/files/public/uploads/Methodological%20standards%20for%20the%20conduct%20of%20Cochrane%20Intervention%20Reviews.PDF (accessed January 1, 2017).Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Wood supplementary material S1

Supplementary Figure

Download Wood supplementary material S1(File)
File 15.1 KB
Supplementary material: File

Wood supplementary material S2

Supplementary Figure

Download Wood supplementary material S2(File)
File 20.7 KB