The quality of reporting methods and results of cost-effectiveness analyses in Spain: a methodological systematic review

Transparency, openness, and reproducible research practices are frequently underused in health economic evaluations

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the extent to which articles of economic evaluations of healthcare interventions indexed in MEDLINE incorporate research practices that promote transparency, openness, and reproducibility.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We evaluated a random sample of health economic evaluations indexed in MEDLINE during 2019. We included articles written in English reporting an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio in terms of costs per life years gained, quality-adjusted life years, and/or disability-adjusted life years. Reproducible research practices, openness, and transparency in each article were extracted in duplicate. We explored whether reproducible research practices were associated with self-report use of a guideline.

RESULTS

We included 200 studies published in 147 journals. Almost half were published as open access articles (n = 93; 47%). Most studies (n = 150; 75%) were model-based economic evaluations. In 109 (55%) studies, authors self-reported use a guideline (e.g., for study conduct or reporting). Few studies (n = 31; 16%) reported working from a protocol. In 112 (56%) studies, authors reported the data needed to recreate the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for the base case analysis. This percentage was higher in studies using a guideline than studies not using a guideline (72/109 [66%] with guideline vs. 40/91 [44%] without guideline; risk ratio 1.50, 95% confidence interval 1.15-1.97). Only 10 (5%) studies mentioned access to raw data and analytic code for reanalyses.

CONCLUSION

Transparency, openness, and reproducible research practices are frequently underused in health economic evaluations. This study provides baseline data to compare future progress in the field.

Preferred Reporting Of Case Series in Surgery (PROCESS) 2023 guidelines

INTRODUCTION

The Preferred Reporting Of CasE Series in Surgery (PROCESS) guidelines were developed in 2016 in order to improve the reporting quality of surgical case series. Since its inception, it has been updated twice, in 2018 and 2020, and has been cited over 1000 times. PROCESS guidelines have enjoyed great acceptance within the surgical research community. Our aim is to update the PROCESS guidelines in order to maintain its applicability in the field of surgical research.

METHODS

A PROCESS 2023 steering group was created. By working in collaboration, members of this group came up with proposals to update the PROCESS 2020 guidelines. These proposals were presented to an expert panel of researchers, who in turn scrutinised these proposals and decided whether they should become part of PROCESS 2023 guidelines or not, through a Delphi consensus exercise.

RESULTS

A total of 38 people participated in the development of PROCESS 2023 guidelines. The majority of items received a score between 7 and 9 from greater than 70% of the participants, indicating consensus with the proposed changes to those items. However, two items (3c and 6a) received a score between 7 and 9 from less than 70% of the participants, indicating a lack of consensus with the proposed changes to those items. Those items will remain unchanged.

DISCUSSION

The updated PROCESS 2023 guidelines are presented with an aim to continue improving the reporting quality of case series in surgery.

Cost-effectiveness of left atrial appendage closure for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation: a systematic review appraising the methodological quality

BACKGROUND

The increasing global prevalence of atrial fibrillation (AF) has led to a growing demand for stroke prevention strategies, resulting in higher healthcare costs. High-quality economic evaluations of stroke prevention strategies can play a crucial role in maximising efficient allocation of resources. In this systematic review, we assessed the methodological quality of such economic evaluations.

METHODS

We searched electronic databases of PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Econ Lit to identify model-based economic evaluations comparing the left atrial appendage closure procedure (LAAC) and oral anticoagulants published in English since 2000. Data on study characteristics, model-based details, and analyses were collected. The methodological quality was evaluated using the modified Economic Evaluations Bias (ECOBIAS) checklist. For each of the 22 biases listed in this checklist, studies were categorised into one of four groups: low risk, partial risk, high risk due to inadequate reporting, or high risk. To gauge the overall quality of each study, we computed a composite score by assigning + 2, 0, - 1 and - 2 to each risk category, respectively.

RESULTS

In our analysis of 12 studies, majority adopted a healthcare provider or payer perspective and employed Markov Models with the number of health states varying from 6 to 16. Cost-effectiveness results varied across studies. LAAC displayed a probability exceeding 50% of being the cost-effective option in six out of nine evaluations compared to warfarin, six out of eight evaluations when compared to dabigatran, in three out of five evaluations against apixaban, and in two out of three studies compared to rivaroxaban. The methodological quality scores for individual studies ranged from 10 to - 12 out of a possible 24. Most high-risk ratings were due to inadequate reporting, which was prevalent across various biases, including those related to data identification, baseline data, treatment effects, and data incorporation. Cost measurement omission bias and inefficient comparator bias were also common.

CONCLUSIONS

While most studies concluded LAAC to be the cost-effective strategy for stroke prevention in AF, shortcomings in methodological quality raise concerns about reliability and validity of results. Future evaluations, free of these shortcomings, can yield stronger policy evidence.

Cost-effectiveness of probiotics and fluoride varnish in caries prevention in preschool children

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of two preventive interventions aimed at increasing the proportion of caries-free preschool children of low socioeconomic status using a decision analytic model.

METHODS

Two scenarios were tested, one with a school milk program (SMP) and one without (non-SMP). Fluoride varnish (FV) and a probiotic (PB) were compared to a do-nothing alternative among children in public nurseries/schools over a 4-year period. FV was applied biannually and a PB (Lactobacillus rhamnosus) added to milk powder prepared daily. A Markov decision tree model was utilized. Several sources of data were used to populate the model. Probabilistic and deterministic sensitivity analyses were performed, and a public provider perspective was used.

RESULTS

In the SMP scenario, PB was more effective and less costly than FV and, compared with do-nothing, increased the proportion of caries-free children by 14.5%, with a cost of USD 12.5 per child (June 2018). PB presented an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) or cost per extra caries-free child of USD 86.2. In the non-SMP scenario, both interventions were cost-effective. FV (compared with do-nothing) increased the percentage of caries-free children by 8.3% with an ICER of USD 338.3 and PB (compared with FV) increased the effect by 6.2% with an ICER of USD 1400.2.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings showed that PB was most effective and less costly than FV in the SMP scenario only. This type of analysis and its results provide essential information for decision-makers to improve the oral health of preschool children.

A systematic review of the methodological quality of economic evaluations in genetic screening and testing for monogenic disorders

PURPOSE

Understanding the value of genetic screening and testing for monogenic disorders requires high-quality, methodologically robust economic evaluations. This systematic review sought to assess the methodological quality among such studies and examined opportunities for improvement.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Cochrane, Embase, and Web of Science for economic evaluations of genetic screening/testing (2013-2019). Methodological rigor and adherence to best practices were systematically assessed using the British Medical Journal checklist.

RESULTS

Across the 47 identified studies, there were substantial variations in modeling approaches, reporting detail, and sophistication. Models ranged from simple decision trees to individual-level microsimulations that compared between 2 and >20 alternative interventions. Many studies failed to report sufficient detail to enable replication or did not justify modeling assumptions, especially for costing methods and utility values. Meta-analyses, systematic reviews, or calibration were rarely used to derive parameter estimates. Nearly all studies conducted some sensitivity analysis, and more sophisticated studies implemented probabilistic sensitivity/uncertainty analysis, threshold analysis, and value of information analysis.

CONCLUSION

We describe a heterogeneous body of work and present recommendations and exemplar studies across the methodological domains of (1) perspective, scope, and parameter selection; (2) use of uncertainty/sensitivity analyses; and (3) reporting transparency for improvement in the economic evaluation of genetic screening/testing.

A retrospective cross-sectional descriptive study to critically appraise the quality of reporting of health economic evaluations conducted in the Indian setting

Background:

The reporting quality of economic research could benefit from enhanced quality assurance procedures. At present, there are small numbers of health economic researches being conducted with Indian context or setting. There is not much clarity about the reporting quality of health economic researches being conducted with Indian context or setting.

Objective:

The primary objective is to of this study was to appraise the quality of reporting of health economic evaluations conducted in the Indian setting and published between January 2014 and December 2018.

Materials and Methods:

This was a retrospective, cross-sectional, descriptive analysis. The MEDLINE in PubMed, Google Scholar, and Science Direct were systematically searched to search for economic evaluations. The consolidated health economic evaluation reporting standards statement checklist was utilized to assess the quality of reporting of the included studies. For grading the quality of the included health economic assessments, the Quality of Health Evaluation Studies (QHES) instrument was used.

Results:

Thirty studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria and were included in the study. The mean QHES score was 80.26 (standard deviation = 8.06). Twenty-five (83.33%, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.66–0.92) of the article mentioned perspective of the study. Twenty-nine (96.66%, 95% CI: 0.83–0.99) of the article described the effects of uncertainty for all input parameters. Twenty (66.66%, 95% CI: 0.48–0.80) of the article reported all funding sources.

Conclusions:

Overall, the quality of reporting of the included health economic studies was good, which reemphasizes their usefulness in supporting the decision-making procedure about better medicine. The finding of this study will be a small step toward ensuring robust and high-quality health economics data in India.

Reporting Quality of Cost-Effectiveness Analyses Conducted in Saudi Arabia: A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVES

Pharmacoeconomics and health economics in general is a new field that is still developing and emerging, not only in Saudi Arabia but all over the world. The objective of this study is to collect all published cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) studies conducted based on Saudi settings and to evaluate their reporting quality.

METHODS

We used PRISMA guidelines to search for all English-language CEAs conducted in Saudi Arabia in 3 databases: Medline, Embase, and Scopus. Keywords used in the search were: cost-effectiveness, cost-benefit, cost-utility, economic evaluation, Saudi Arabia. The data extracted were analyzed to assess reporting quality based on Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Guidelines (CHEERS) and the second panel recommendations.

RESULTS

The 3 databases yielded 859 articles after removing duplicates. Only 7 articles included as final results following PRISMA guidelines. These 7 studies were published between 2015 and 2020. The CEA studies varied in their reporting quality; however, there were common missing required items among all of them, such as justifying choosing of a specific model and time horizon and reporting the ethical implications of the studied interventions.

CONCLUSION

Seven published CEA studies were conducted based on Saudi settings as revealed by this review. The included studies reported the more important aspects of CEA studies. However, there were missed reporting items based on the checklists we used to assess CEAs in this review. Although perfect and complete adherence to CHEERS or the second panel guidelines is a high standard, future CEAs should adhere to such standards. Transparency and good reporting are cornerstones in CEAs, and future CEAs should report their methods, findings, and results in a more transparent and efficient way.

Cost-effectiveness for imaging stable ischemic disease

Stable ischemic heart disease remains a major cause of morbidity and mortality. Although there are multiple imaging modalities to diagnose and/or assist in the clinical management, the most cost-effective approach remains unclear. We reviewed the relevant and recent evidence-based clinical studies and trials to suggest the most cost-effective approach to stable ischemic heart disease. The limitations of these studies are discussed. Incorporating the results of recent multicenter trials, we suggest that for appropriate patients with coronary artery disease with any degree of stenosis or presence of coronary calcium, optimal medical therapy may be most cost-effective. Invasive coronary angiography and/or coronary revascularization would be primarily for non-responders or >/=50% left main stenosis. Stress cardiac magnetic imaging would be performed for those patients with non-diagnostic coronary CT angiography from motion and non-responders from optimal medical therapy in non-diagnostic coronary CT angiography group from high coronary calcium. These paths seem to be safe and cost-effective but requires modeling for confirmation.

Cost-Effectiveness Studies in the ICU: A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVES

Cost-effectiveness analyses are increasingly used to aid decisions about resource allocation in healthcare; this practice is slow to translate into critical care. We sought to identify and summarize original cost-effectiveness studies presenting cost per quality-adjusted life year, incremental cost-effectiveness ratios, or cost per life-year ratios for treatments used in ICUs.

DESIGN

We conducted a systematic search of the English-language literature for cost-effectiveness analyses published from 1993 to 2018 in critical care. Study quality was assessed using the Drummond checklist.

SETTING

Critical care units.

PATIENTS OR SUBJECTS

Critical care patients.

INTERVENTIONS

Identified studies with cost-effectiveness analyses.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

We identified 97 studies published through 2018 with 156 cost-effectiveness ratios. Reported incremental cost-effectiveness ratios ranged from -$119,635 (hypothetical cohort of patients requiring either intermittent or continuous renal replacement therapy) to $876,539 (data from an acute renal failure study in which continuous renal replacement therapy was the most expensive therapy). Many studies reported favorable cost-effectiveness profiles (i.e., below $50,000 per life year or quality-adjusted life year). However, several therapies have since been proven harmful. Over 2 decades, relatively few cost-effectiveness studies in critical care have been published (average 4.6 studies per year). There has been a more recent trend toward using hypothetical cohorts and modeling scenarios without proven clinical data (2014-2018: 19/33 [58%]).

CONCLUSIONS

Despite critical care being a significant healthcare cost burden there remains a paucity of studies in the literature evaluating its cost effectiveness.

Economic Evaluation for Pricing and Reimbursement of New Drugs in Spain: Fable or Desideratum?

BACKGROUND

The economic evaluation of healthcare technologies has become in many countries a basic tool for reimbursement, pricing and purchasing decisions.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this article is to examine the institutional, legal, and political factors that have impeded the application of economic evaluation and the criterion of efficiency in the process of pricing and reimbursement of new medicines in Spain.

METHODS

Narrative description of the current institutional framework for the use of economic evaluation in pricing and reimbursement in Spain, legal and policy framework in the field of evaluation of new medicines, and stakeholder initiatives and policies related to the use of economic evaluation outside of the pricing and reimbursement process.

RESULTS

Spain has an institutional framework created and established over the last years that could have facilitated a formal use of economic evaluation in the process of pricing and reimbursement. Nevertheless, the real use of economic evaluation at the central or regional level is still unknown, although application of the efficiency criterion, linking to cost-effectiveness, has been clearly required by Spanish laws and regulations at the national level. We highlight a certain degree of moral hazard from the central government that is not directly responsible for the budget impact of reimbursement and pricing decisions. There are currently a number of ongoing initiatives in the field of economic evaluation by various agents, but they remain uncoordinated.

CONCLUSIONS

Poor governance at the highest level of decision making is the main reason for the lack of interest in economic evaluation. A profound political change, supported by transparency and accountability, is required before the criterion of efficiency can be fully considered in the process of pricing and reimbursement of new medicines in Spain.

Economic evaluations of screening strategies for the early detection of colorectal cancer in the average-risk population: A systematic literature review

Background

Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening has proven effective in reducing CRC mortality. This study aimed to systematically review, and evaluate the reporting quality, of the economic evidence regarding CRC screening in average-risk individuals.

Methods

Databases searched included Medline, EMBASE, National Health Service Economic Evaluation, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, Cost-Effectiveness Analysis registry, EconLit, and Health Technology Assessment database. Eligible studies were cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analyses comparing CRC screening strategies in average-risk individuals, published in English or Spanish, between January 2012 and November 2018. Reporting quality was assessed using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) checklist.

Results

Of 1,993 publications initially retrieved, 477 were excluded by duplicate review, 1,449 by title/abstract review, and 34 by full-text review. Finally, 33 publications were included in the qualitative synthesis. Most studies were conducted in Europe (36,4%), followed by United States (24,2%) and Asia (24,2%). The main screening modalities considered were fecal immunochemical tests (70%), colonoscopy (67%), guaiac fecal occult blood test (42%) and flexible sigmoidoscopy (30%). In most studies, CRC screening was deemed cost-effective compared to no screening. Sensitivity analyses indicated that cost of CRC screening tests, adherence to screening, screening test sensitivity, and cost of CRC treatment had the greatest impact on cost-effectiveness results across studies. The majority of studies (73%) adequately reported at least 50% of the items included in the CHEERS checklist. Least well reported items included setting, study perspective, discount rate, model choice, and methods to identify effectiveness data or to estimate resource use and costs.

Conclusions

CRC screening is an efficient alternative to no screening. Nevertheless, it is not possible to conclude which strategy should be preferred for population-based screening programs. Although we observed an overall good adherence to CHEERS recommendations, there is still room for improvement in economic evaluations reporting in this field.

Cost evaluations in health professions education: a systematic review of methods and reporting quality

CONTEXT

High-quality research into education costs can inform better decision making. Improvements to cost research can be guided by information about the research questions, methods and reporting of studies evaluating costs in health professions education (HPE). Our objective was to appraise the overall state of the field and evaluate temporal trends in the methods and reporting quality of cost evaluations in HPE research.

METHODS

We searched the MEDLINE, CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature), EMBASE, Business Source Complete and ERIC (Education Resources Information Centre) databases on 31 July 2017. To evaluate trends over time, we sampled research reports at 5-year intervals (2001, 2006, 2011 and 2016). All original research studies in HPE that reported a cost outcome were included. The Medical Education Research Study Quality Instrument (MERSQI) and the BMJ economic checklist were used to appraise methodological and reporting quality, respectively. Trends in quality over time were analysed.

RESULTS

A total of 78 studies were included, of which 16 were published in 2001, 15 in 2006, 20 in 2011 and 27 in 2016. The region most commonly represented was the USA (n = 43). The profession most commonly referred to was that of the physician (n = 46). The mean ± standard deviation (SD) MERSQI score was 10.9 ± 2.6 out of 18, with no significant change over time (p = 0.55). The mean ± SD BMJ score was 13.5 ± 7.1 out of 35, with no significant change over time (p = 0.39). A total of 49 (63%) studies stated a cost-related research question, 23 (29%) stated the type of cost evaluation used, and 31 (40%) described the method of estimating resource quantities and unit costs. A total of 16 studies compared two or more interventions and reported both cost and learning outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

The absolute number of cost evaluations in HPE is increasing. However, there are shortcomings in the quality of methodology and reporting, and these are not improving over time.

EQ-5D-5L utilities per health states in Spanish population with knee or hip osteoarthritis

BACKGROUND

The objective of this study was to obtain utilities by means of EQ-5D-5L for different health states in patients with knee osteoarthritis (KOA) or hip osteoarthritis (HOA) in Spain, and to compare these values with those used in foreign studies with the aim of discussing their transferability for their use in economic evaluations conducted in Spain.

METHODS

Primary study: Observational prospective study of KOA or HOA patients in Spain. Sociodemographic and clinical characteristics were collected to characterize the sample. Utilities were elicited using the EQ-5D-5L questionnaire. ANOVA and bivariable analyses were conducted to identify differences between health states.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Using the bibliographic databases NSH EED and CEA Registry, we conducted searches of model-based cost utilities analyses of technologies in KOA or HOA patients. Health states and utilities were extracted and compared with values obtained from the Spanish sample.

RESULTS

Three hundred ninety-seven subjects with KOA and 361 subjects with HOA were included, with average utilities of 0.544 and 0.520, respectively. In both samples, differences were found in utilities according to level of pain, stiffness and physical function (WOMAC) and severity of symptoms (Oxford scales), so that the worst the symptoms, the lower the utilities. The utilities after surgery were higher than before surgery. Due to limitations from our study related to sample size and observational design, it was not possible to estimate utilities for approximately half the health states included in the published models because they were directly related to specific technologies. For almost 100% of health states of the selected studies we obtained very different utilities from those reported in the literature.

CONCLUSIONS

To our knowledge this is the first article with detailed utilities estimated using the EQ-5D-5L in Spain for KOA and HOA patients. In both populations, utilities are lower for worse health states in terms of level of pain, stiffness and physical function according to WOMAC, and according to the Oxford scales. Most utilities obtained from the Spanish sample are lower than those reported in the international literature. Further studies estimating utilities from local populations are required to avoid the use of foreign sources in economic evaluations.

[Endorsement of guidelines for reporting economic evaluation studies by Spanish biomedical journals]

OBJECTIVE

To examine the endorsement of reporting guidelines for economic evaluation studies, such as the CHEERS (Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards) statement, by Spanish biomedical journals.

METHOD

Cross-sectional analysis of the instructions to authors of Spanish biomedical journals included in the Journal Citation Reports 2017. Two authors examined and extracted the following information: mention of any reporting guideline, the CHEERS statement, the recommendations of the International Committee of Medical Journal Directors (ICMJE) and the Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research (EQUATOR) network.

RESULTS

Of the 28 journals included, 23 (82.1%; 95% confidence interval [95%CI]: 63.1-93.9%) mentioned at least one reporting guideline in the instructions to authors. Only one journal mentioned the CHEERS statement for health economic evaluations. Twenty-four journals (85.7%; 95%CI: 67.3-96.0%) mentioned the ICMJE recommendations and 8 (28.6%; 95%CI: 13.2-48.7%) mentioned the EQUATOR network. The CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) statement for clinical trials was the most- mentioned reporting guideline (n=21; 75.0%; 95%CI: 55.1-89.3%).

DISCUSSION

Most of the instructions to authors do not provide guidance on how to report economic evaluations. Journals should support compliance with reporting guidelines by authors and peer-reviewers.

Cost-effectiveness of GeneXpert and LED-FM for diagnosis of pulmonary tuberculosis: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Early and accurate diagnosis of tuberculosis is a priority for TB programs globally to initiate treatment early and improve treatment outcomes. Currently, Ziehl-Neelsen (ZN) stain-based microscopy, GeneXpert and Light Emitting Diode-Fluorescence Microscopy (LED-FM) are used for diagnosing pulmonary drug sensitive tuberculosis. Published evidence synthesising the cost-effectiveness of these diagnostic tools is scarce.

METHODOLOGY

PubMed, EMBASE and Cost-effectiveness analysis registry were searched for studies that reported on the cost-effectiveness of GeneXpert and LED-FM, compared to ZN microscopy for diagnosing pulmonary TB. Risk of bias was assessed independently by four authors using the Consensus Health Economic Criteria (CHEC) extended checklist. The data variables included the study settings, population, type of intervention, type of comparator, year of study, duration of study, type of study design, costs for the test and the comparator and effectiveness indicators. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was used for assessing the relative cost-effectiveness in this review.

RESULTS

Of the 496 studies identified by the search, thirteen studies were included after removing duplicates and studies that did not fulfil inclusion criteria. Four studies compared LED-FM with ZN and nine studies compared GeneXpert with ZN. Three studies used patient cohorts and eight were modelling studies with hypothetical cohorts used to evaluate cost-effectiveness. All these studies were conducted from a health system perspective, with four studies utilising cost utility analysis. There were considerable variations in costing parameters and effectiveness indicators that precluded meta-analysis. The key findings from the included studies suggest that LED-FM and GeneXpert may be cost effective for pulmonary TB diagnosis from a health system perspective.

CONCLUSION

Our review identifies a consistent trend of the cost effectiveness of LED-FM and GeneXpert for pulmonary TB diagnosis in different countries with diverse context of socio-economic condition, HIV burden and geographical distribution. However, all the studies used different parameters to estimate the impact of these tools and this underscores the need for improving the methodological issues related to the conduct and reporting of cost-effectiveness studies.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis in Radiology: A Systematic Review

PURPOSE

Cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) have become more prevalent in radiology. However, the lack of standard methodology may lead to conflicting conclusions on the cost-effectiveness of an imaging modality and hinder CEA-based policy recommendations. This study reviews recent CEAs to identify areas of methodological variation, explore their impact on interpretation, and discuss optimal strategies for performing CEAs in radiology.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review for cost-utility analyses in radiology from 2013 to 2017. Cost and quality-of-life methods were analyzed and compared using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards checklist.

RESULTS

Eighty cost-utility studies met our inclusion criteria. A payer perspective was the most common (70%) and hospital perspective the least common (5%). Fourteen studies (17.5%) did not report perspective, and 12 (15%) reported a perspective inconsistent with their performed analysis. Cost inclusion varied greatly between studies; adverse effects of imaging (20.5%) and hospitalization (34.6%) were the least frequently included direct costs. Studies that measured their own utilities most commonly used the EuroQol-5D and Short Form-6D questionnaires; however, most studies (80%) cited utilities from previous literature. Seventy-two studies (90%) used willingness-to-pay thresholds, and 30 used cost-effectiveness acceptability curves (41.7%).

CONCLUSION

We observed statistically significant methodological variation indicating the need for a standardized, accurate means of performing and presenting CEAs within radiology. We make several recommendations to address key problems regarding study perspective, cost inclusion, and use of willingness-to-pay thresholds. Further work is required to ensure comparability and transparency between studies such that policymakers are properly informed when utilizing CEA results.

A Survey of the Prevalence and Impact of Reporting Guideline Endorsement in Pathology Journals

OBJECTIVES

To determine the prevalence of reporting guideline endorsement in pathology journals and to estimate the impact of guideline endorsement.

METHODS

We compared the quality of reporting in two sets of studies: (1) studies published in journals that explicitly mentioned a guideline vs studies published in journals that did not and (2) studies that cited a guideline vs studies that did not. The quality of reporting in prognostic biomarker studies was assessed using the REporting recommendations for tumor MARKer prognostic studies (REMARK) guideline.

RESULTS

We found that six (10%) of the 59 leading pathology journals explicitly mention reporting guidelines in the instructions to authors. Only one journal required authors to submit a checklist. There was significant variation in the rate at which various REMARK items were reported (P < .001). Journal endorsement was associated with more complete reporting (P = .04). Studies that cited REMARK had greater adherence to the REMARK reporting guidelines than studies that did not (P = .02).

CONCLUSIONS

The prevalence of guideline endorsement is relatively low in pathology journals, but guideline endorsement may improve the quality of reporting.

Cost-effectiveness of pediatric bilateral cochlear implantation in Spain

OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS

To determine the incremental cost-effectiveness of bilateral versus unilateral cochlear implantation for 1-year-old children suffering from bilateral sensorineural severe to profound hearing loss from the perspective of the Spanish public health system.

STUDY DESIGN

Cost-utility analysis.

METHODS

We conducted a general-population survey to estimate the quality-of-life increase contributed by the second implant. We built a Markov influence diagram and evaluated it for a life-long time horizon with a 3% discount rate in the base case.

RESULTS

The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of simultaneous bilateral implantation with respect to unilateral implantation for 1-year-old children with severe to profound deafness is €10,323 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY). For sequential bilateral implantation, it rises to €11,733/QALY. Both options are cost-effective for the Spanish health system, whose willingness to pay is estimated at around €30,000/QALY. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis shows that the probability of bilateral implantation being cost-effective reaches 100% for that cost-effectiveness threshold.

CONCLUSIONS

Bilateral implantation is clearly cost-effective for the population considered. If possible, it should be done simultaneously (i.e., in one surgical operation), because it is as safe and effective as sequential implantation, and saves costs for the system and for users and their families. Sequential implantation is also cost-effective for children who have received the first implant recently, but it is difficult to determine when it ceases to be so because of the lack of detailed data. These results are specific for Spain, but the model can easily be adapted to other countries.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

2C. Laryngoscope, 127:2866-2872, 2017.

[Potential sponsorship bias in cost-effectiveness analyses of healthcare interventions: A cross-sectional analysis]

Objetivo

Examinar la relación entre la fuente de financiación de los análisis coste-efectividad de intervenciones sanitarias publicados en España y las conclusiones de los estudios.

Diseño

Estudio descriptivo transversal.

Emplazamiento

Bases de datos de literatura científica (hasta diciembre de 2014).

Participantes (unidad de análisis)

Cohorte de análisis coste-efectividad de intervenciones sanitarias publicados en España entre 1989-2014 (n = 223) que presentaran como medida de resultado los años de vida ajustados por calidad (AVAC).

Mediciones principales

Se establecieron relaciones entre las conclusiones cualitativas de los estudios y el tipo de fuente de financiación utilizando la prueba exacta de Fisher en tablas de contingencia. Se exploraron las distribuciones de las estimaciones de las razones coste-efectividad incremental por fuente de financiación en relación a umbrales hipotéticos de disposición a pagar entre 30.000-50.000 € por AVAC.

Resultados

Un total de 136 (61,0%) estudios fueron financiados por la industria. Los estudios financiados por la industria eran menos propensos a presentar conclusiones desfavorables o neutrales que los estudios no financiados por la industria (2,2% frente al 23,0%; p < 0,0001), fundamentalmente en los estudios que evaluaban fármacos (0,9% frente al 21,4%; p < 0,0001). Las razones coste-efectividad incremental en los estudios financiados por la industria eran más propensas a situarse por debajo de los umbrales hipotéticos de disposición a pagar de 30.000 € (73,8% frente al 56,3%; p < 0,0001) y 50.000 € (89,4% frente al 68,2%; p < 0,0001) por AVAC.

Conclusiones

El presente estudio revela un potencial sesgo de patrocinio en los análisis coste-efectividad. Los estudios financiados por la industria podrían estar favoreciendo el perfil de eficiencia de sus productos.