Challenges of Systematic Reviews of Economic Evaluations: A Review of Recent Reviews and Obesity Case Study

Elisabet Jacobsen* (Corresponding Author), Dwayne Boyers, Alison Avenell

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Decision makers increasingly require cost-effectiveness evidence to inform resource allocation and the need for systematic reviews of economic evaluations (SREE) has grown accordingly.

The objective was to describe current practice and identify unique challenges in conducting and reporting SREEs.

Current guideline documents for SREEs were consulted and summarised. A rapid review of English language SREEs, using Medline and Embase, published in 2017/18, containing at least 20 studies was undertaken to describe current practice. Information on data extraction methods, quality assessment tools, and reporting methods were narratively summarised. Lessons learned from a recently conducted SREE of weight loss interventions for severely obese adults were discussed.

63 publications were included in the rapid review. Substantial heterogeneity in review methods, reporting standards, and quality assessment approaches was evident. Our recently conducted SREE on weight loss interventions identified scope to improve process efficiency, opportunity for more transparent and succinct reporting, and potential to improve consistency of quality assessment. Practical solutions may include 1) using pre-piloted data extraction forms linked explicitly to results tables; 2) consistently reporting on key assumptions and sensitivity analyses that drive results and 3) using checklists that include topic-specific items where relevant and that allow reviewers to distinguish between reporting, justification and quality assessment.

The lack of a mutually agreed, standardised set of best practice guidelines has led to substantial heterogeneity in the conduct and reporting of SREEs. Future work is required to standardise the approach to conducting SREEs so that they can generate efficient, timely and relevant evidence to support decision-making. We suggest only data extracting information that will be reported, focussing discussion around the key drivers of cost-effectiveness, and improving consistency in quality assessment by distinguishing between what is reported, justified by authors, and deemed appropriate by the reviewer.
Original languageEnglish
JournalPharmacoeconomics
Early online date13 Jan 2020
DOIs
Publication statusE-pub ahead of print - 13 Jan 2020

Fingerprint

Cost-Benefit Analysis
Obesity
Practice Guidelines
Weight Loss
Resource Allocation
Checklist
Publications
Decision Making
Language
Guidelines

Cite this

Challenges of Systematic Reviews of Economic Evaluations : A Review of Recent Reviews and Obesity Case Study. / Jacobsen, Elisabet (Corresponding Author); Boyers, Dwayne; Avenell, Alison.

In: Pharmacoeconomics, 13.01.2020.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{c8ab95b654644b1bbebb3a45bc3de0de,
title = "Challenges of Systematic Reviews of Economic Evaluations: A Review of Recent Reviews and Obesity Case Study",
abstract = "Decision makers increasingly require cost-effectiveness evidence to inform resource allocation and the need for systematic reviews of economic evaluations (SREE) has grown accordingly.The objective was to describe current practice and identify unique challenges in conducting and reporting SREEs.Current guideline documents for SREEs were consulted and summarised. A rapid review of English language SREEs, using Medline and Embase, published in 2017/18, containing at least 20 studies was undertaken to describe current practice. Information on data extraction methods, quality assessment tools, and reporting methods were narratively summarised. Lessons learned from a recently conducted SREE of weight loss interventions for severely obese adults were discussed.63 publications were included in the rapid review. Substantial heterogeneity in review methods, reporting standards, and quality assessment approaches was evident. Our recently conducted SREE on weight loss interventions identified scope to improve process efficiency, opportunity for more transparent and succinct reporting, and potential to improve consistency of quality assessment. Practical solutions may include 1) using pre-piloted data extraction forms linked explicitly to results tables; 2) consistently reporting on key assumptions and sensitivity analyses that drive results and 3) using checklists that include topic-specific items where relevant and that allow reviewers to distinguish between reporting, justification and quality assessment.The lack of a mutually agreed, standardised set of best practice guidelines has led to substantial heterogeneity in the conduct and reporting of SREEs. Future work is required to standardise the approach to conducting SREEs so that they can generate efficient, timely and relevant evidence to support decision-making. We suggest only data extracting information that will be reported, focussing discussion around the key drivers of cost-effectiveness, and improving consistency in quality assessment by distinguishing between what is reported, justified by authors, and deemed appropriate by the reviewer.",
author = "Elisabet Jacobsen and Dwayne Boyers and Alison Avenell",
note = "Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank the REBALANCE team for commenting on the REBALANCE systematic review used as a case-study. We also wish to thank Karin G{\o}the {\'A}slakksd{\'o}ttir for contributing to the rapid review of reviews. Funding: The authors received no direct funding for this study and/or preparation of this manuscript. However, the REBALANCE study was funded by the National Institute for Health Research HTA programme, project number 15/09/04.",
year = "2020",
month = "1",
day = "13",
doi = "10.1007/s40273-019-00878-2",
language = "English",
journal = "Pharmacoeconomics",
issn = "1170-7690",
publisher = "Adis International Ltd",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Challenges of Systematic Reviews of Economic Evaluations

T2 - A Review of Recent Reviews and Obesity Case Study

AU - Jacobsen, Elisabet

AU - Boyers, Dwayne

AU - Avenell, Alison

N1 - Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank the REBALANCE team for commenting on the REBALANCE systematic review used as a case-study. We also wish to thank Karin Gøthe Áslakksdóttir for contributing to the rapid review of reviews. Funding: The authors received no direct funding for this study and/or preparation of this manuscript. However, the REBALANCE study was funded by the National Institute for Health Research HTA programme, project number 15/09/04.

PY - 2020/1/13

Y1 - 2020/1/13

N2 - Decision makers increasingly require cost-effectiveness evidence to inform resource allocation and the need for systematic reviews of economic evaluations (SREE) has grown accordingly.The objective was to describe current practice and identify unique challenges in conducting and reporting SREEs.Current guideline documents for SREEs were consulted and summarised. A rapid review of English language SREEs, using Medline and Embase, published in 2017/18, containing at least 20 studies was undertaken to describe current practice. Information on data extraction methods, quality assessment tools, and reporting methods were narratively summarised. Lessons learned from a recently conducted SREE of weight loss interventions for severely obese adults were discussed.63 publications were included in the rapid review. Substantial heterogeneity in review methods, reporting standards, and quality assessment approaches was evident. Our recently conducted SREE on weight loss interventions identified scope to improve process efficiency, opportunity for more transparent and succinct reporting, and potential to improve consistency of quality assessment. Practical solutions may include 1) using pre-piloted data extraction forms linked explicitly to results tables; 2) consistently reporting on key assumptions and sensitivity analyses that drive results and 3) using checklists that include topic-specific items where relevant and that allow reviewers to distinguish between reporting, justification and quality assessment.The lack of a mutually agreed, standardised set of best practice guidelines has led to substantial heterogeneity in the conduct and reporting of SREEs. Future work is required to standardise the approach to conducting SREEs so that they can generate efficient, timely and relevant evidence to support decision-making. We suggest only data extracting information that will be reported, focussing discussion around the key drivers of cost-effectiveness, and improving consistency in quality assessment by distinguishing between what is reported, justified by authors, and deemed appropriate by the reviewer.

AB - Decision makers increasingly require cost-effectiveness evidence to inform resource allocation and the need for systematic reviews of economic evaluations (SREE) has grown accordingly.The objective was to describe current practice and identify unique challenges in conducting and reporting SREEs.Current guideline documents for SREEs were consulted and summarised. A rapid review of English language SREEs, using Medline and Embase, published in 2017/18, containing at least 20 studies was undertaken to describe current practice. Information on data extraction methods, quality assessment tools, and reporting methods were narratively summarised. Lessons learned from a recently conducted SREE of weight loss interventions for severely obese adults were discussed.63 publications were included in the rapid review. Substantial heterogeneity in review methods, reporting standards, and quality assessment approaches was evident. Our recently conducted SREE on weight loss interventions identified scope to improve process efficiency, opportunity for more transparent and succinct reporting, and potential to improve consistency of quality assessment. Practical solutions may include 1) using pre-piloted data extraction forms linked explicitly to results tables; 2) consistently reporting on key assumptions and sensitivity analyses that drive results and 3) using checklists that include topic-specific items where relevant and that allow reviewers to distinguish between reporting, justification and quality assessment.The lack of a mutually agreed, standardised set of best practice guidelines has led to substantial heterogeneity in the conduct and reporting of SREEs. Future work is required to standardise the approach to conducting SREEs so that they can generate efficient, timely and relevant evidence to support decision-making. We suggest only data extracting information that will be reported, focussing discussion around the key drivers of cost-effectiveness, and improving consistency in quality assessment by distinguishing between what is reported, justified by authors, and deemed appropriate by the reviewer.

U2 - 10.1007/s40273-019-00878-2

DO - 10.1007/s40273-019-00878-2

M3 - Article

JO - Pharmacoeconomics

JF - Pharmacoeconomics

SN - 1170-7690

ER -