Breast cancer research and treatment · 2017
Critical appraisal of health-state utility values used in breast cancer-related cost-utility analyses.
СтатьяОбзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Nerich Virginie, Saing Sopany, Gamper Eva-Maria, Holzner Bernhard, Pivot Xavier, Viney Rosalie, Kemmler Georg
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To review the data sources of health-state utility values (HSUVs), as well as their elicitation and use, in 140 breast cancer-related cost-utility analyses (CUAs), and to provide a critical appraisal of these.
METHODS: A checklist was developed to guide the process of the critical appraisal. It is divided into three parts: the data source (three questions), elicitation method (four questions), and use (ten questions) of HSUVs in CUAs. Two independent reviewers performed the data extraction. A consensus was reached in case of disagreements. Data sources were categorized as "original study," "derived from the literature," or "other."
RESULTS: The data source of HSUVs was always specified. When HSUVs were derived from the literature (90% of cases), the authors referred to a median number of two references as data sources. The critical appraisal of the elicitation of HSUVs in CUAs revealed considerable variability in terms of the quality of the reporting of the data source selection of HSUV. More details were provided by authors when HSUVs were elicited from an original study rather than derived from the literature. The use of HSUVs elicited from an original study was generally better described in terms of the checklist than were those derived from the literature.
CONCLUSIONS: Based on the developed checklist, we were able to highlight the challenges that authors are facing when trying to adequately report HSUV used in CUAs. Our proposed checklist offers a good starting point for encouraging more explicit and comprehensive reporting of HSUVs in CUAs.
METHODS: A checklist was developed to guide the process of the critical appraisal. It is divided into three parts: the data source (three questions), elicitation method (four questions), and use (ten questions) of HSUVs in CUAs. Two independent reviewers performed the data extraction. A consensus was reached in case of disagreements. Data sources were categorized as "original study," "derived from the literature," or "other."
RESULTS: The data source of HSUVs was always specified. When HSUVs were derived from the literature (90% of cases), the authors referred to a median number of two references as data sources. The critical appraisal of the elicitation of HSUVs in CUAs revealed considerable variability in terms of the quality of the reporting of the data source selection of HSUV. More details were provided by authors when HSUVs were elicited from an original study rather than derived from the literature. The use of HSUVs elicited from an original study was generally better described in terms of the checklist than were those derived from the literature.
CONCLUSIONS: Based on the developed checklist, we were able to highlight the challenges that authors are facing when trying to adequately report HSUV used in CUAs. Our proposed checklist offers a good starting point for encouraging more explicit and comprehensive reporting of HSUVs in CUAs.