Systematic review of reporting quality of economic evaluations in plastic surgery based on the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement

Reporting quality of economic evaluations of the negotiated Traditional Chinese Medicines in national reimbursement drug list of China: A systematic review

Background

Traditional Medicine (TM) has a wide uptake in most countries. In China, Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) is a common kind of primary health because of its beneficial effects. This review aimed to appraise the publication reporting quality of economic evaluations for selective TCM in the National Reimbursement Drug List (NRDL), Version 2020, based on the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement.

Methods

Electronic databases were searched for economic evaluation that supported the TCM negotiations in NRDL (2020 version) published from 2001 to 2021, including PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, CNKI, WanFang, and SinoMed. The CHEERS statement was used to appraise the reporting quality of included TCM economic evaluations.

Results

A total of 360 articles were retrieved, but only 38 economic evaluations met the inclusion criteria. None of the articles reported all items in the CHEERS checklist. The mean score of included articles is low at 10.93±2.62, with an average scoring rate of 51.31±10.53%. The least reported items included: "Characterizing heterogeneity," "Conflicts of interest", "Discount rate," and "Study perspective," with a reporting rate of 0.00%, 5.26%, 7.89%, and 15.79%, respectively.

Conclusion

An upward trend occurred in the quantity and quality of the economic evaluation publications of TCM in China. TCM economic evaluations are still at an early stage, with an urgent need for improving reporting quality. It may result from research experiences or different ideas between TCM and Western Medicine. Adhering to reporting guidelines like CHEERS and educating economic evaluation investigators can improve TCM economic evaluations' reporting quality.

Methodologic and Reporting Quality of Economic Evaluations in Hand and Wrist Surgery: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Economic evaluations can inform decision-making; however, previous publications have identified poor quality of economic evaluations in surgical specialties.

METHODS

Study periods were from January 1, 2006, to April 20, 2020 (methodologic quality) and January 1, 2014, to April 20, 2020 (reporting quality). Primary outcomes were methodologic quality [Guidelines for Authors and Peer Reviewers of Economic Submissions to The BMJ (Drummond's checklist), 33 points; Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES), 100 points; Consensus on Health Economic Criteria (CHEC), 19 points] and reporting quality (Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Standards (CHEERS) statement, 24 points).

RESULTS

Forty-seven hand economic evaluations were included. Partial economic analyses (i.e., cost analysis) were the most common (n = 34; 72 percent). Average scores of full economic evaluations (i.e., cost-utility analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis) were: Drummond's checklist, 27.08 of 33 (82.05 percent); QHES, 79.76 of 100 (79.76 percent); CHEC, 15.54 of 19 (81.78 percent); and CHEERS, 20.25 of 24 (84.38 percent). Cost utility analyses had the highest methodologic and reporting quality scores: Drummond's checklist, 28.89 of 35 (82.54 percent); QHES, 86.56 of 100 (86.56 percent); CHEC, 16.78 of 19 (88.30 percent); and CHEERS, 20.8 of 24 (86.67 percent). The association (multiple R) between CHEC and CHEERS was strongest: CHEC, 0.953; Drummond's checklist, 0.907; and QHES, 0.909.

CONCLUSIONS

Partial economic evaluations in hand surgery are prevalent but not very useful. The Consensus on Health Economic Criteria and Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Standards should be used in tandem when undertaking and evaluating economic evaluation in hand surgery.

Meta-analysis of economic evaluation studies: data harmonisation and methodological issues

BACKGROUND

In the context of ever-growing health expenditure and limited resources, economic evaluations aid in making evidence-informed policy decisions. Cost-utility analysis (CUA) is often used, and CUA data synthesis is also desirable, but methodological issues are challenged. Hence, we aim to provide a step-by-step process to prepare the CUA data for meta-analysis.

METHODS

Data harmonisation methods were constructed specifically considering CUA methodology, including inconsistent reports, economic parameters, heterogeneity (i.e., country's income, time horizon, perspective, modelling approaches, currency, willingness to pay). An incremental net benefit (INB) and its variance were estimated and pooled across studies using a basic meta-analysis by COMER.

RESULTS

Five scenarios show how to obtain INB and variance with various reported data: Study reports the mean and variance (Scenario 1) or 95% confidence interval (Scenario 2) of ΔC, ΔE, and ICER for INB/variance calculations. Scenario 3: ΔC, ΔE, and variances are available, but not for the ICER; a Monte Carlo was used to simulate ΔC and ΔE data, variance and covariance can be then estimated leading INB calculation. Scenario-4: Only the CE plane was available, ΔC and ΔE data can be extracted; means of ΔC, ΔE, and variance/covariance can be estimated accordingly, leading to INB/variance estimates. Scenario-5: Only mean cost/outcomes and ICER are available but not for variance and the CE-plane. A variance INB can be borrowed from other studies which are similar characteristics, including country income, ICERs, intervention-comparator, time period, country region, and model type and inputs (i.e., discounting, time horizon).

CONCLUSION

Out data harmonisation and meta-analytic methods should be useful for researchers for the synthesis of economic evidence to aid policymakers in decision making.

A Systematic Review of Health State Utility Values in the Plastic Surgery Literature

Cost-utility analyses assess health gains acquired by interventions by incorporating weighted health state utility values (HSUVs). HSUVs are important in plastic and reconstructive surgery (PRS) because they include qualitative metrics when comparing operative techniques or interventions. We systematically reviewed the literature to identify the extent and quality of existing original utilities research within PRS.

Methods

A systematic review of articles with original PRS utility data was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis guidelines. Subspecialty, survey sample size, and respondent characteristics were extracted. For each HSUV, the utility measure [direct (standard gamble, time trade off, visual analog scale) and/or indirect], mean utility score, and measure of variance were recorded. Similar HSUVs were pooled into weighted averages based on sample size if they were derived from the same utility measure.

Results

In total, 348 HSUVs for 194 disease states were derived from 56 studies within seven PRS subspecialties. Utility studies were most common in breast (n = 17, 30.4%) and hand/upper extremity (n = 15, 26.8%), and direct measurements were most frequent [visual analog scale (55.4%), standard gamble (46.4%), time trade off (57.1%)]. Studies surveying the general public had more respondents (n = 165, IQR 103-299) than those that surveyed patients (n = 61, IQR 48-79) or healthcare professionals (n = 42, IQR 10-109). HSUVs for 18 health states were aggregated.

Conclusions

The HSUV literature within PRS is scant and heterogeneous. Researchers should become familiar with these outcomes, as integrating utility and cost data will help illustrate that the impact of certain interventions are cost-effective when we consider patient quality of life.