Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T16:50:05.039Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Quality Assessment of Reporting of Economic Evaluation in Cardiac Sugery: Has it Improved?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 February 2019

Pascale Guerre ,
Nermine Laaboub ,
Cyrille Colin ,
Jean-François Obadia ,
Christell Julien ,
Abdelbaste Hrifach ,
Hugo Rabier Open the ORCID record for Hugo Rabier [Opens in a new window] ,
Hassan Serrier Open the ORCID record for Hassan Serrier [Opens in a new window]  and
Daniel Grinberg
Pascale Guerre*
Affiliation:
Hospices Civils de Lyon, Service d'Evaluation Economique en Santé; Hospices Civils de Lyon, Cellule Innovation, Département de la Recherche Clinique et de l'Innovation
Nermine Laaboub
Affiliation:
Hospices Civils de Lyon, Service d'Evaluation Economique en Santé
Cyrille Colin
Affiliation:
Hospices Civils de Lyon, Service d'Evaluation Economique en Santé
Jean-François Obadia
Affiliation:
Service de Chirurgie Cardiaque, Hôpital Cardiologique Louis Pradel, Université Claude Bernard
Christell Julien
Affiliation:
Hospices Civils de Lyon, Service d'Evaluation Economique en Santé
Abdelbaste Hrifach
Affiliation:
Hospices Civils de Lyon, Service d'Evaluation Economique en Santé
Hugo Rabier
Affiliation:
Hospices Civils de Lyon, Service d'Evaluation Economique en Santé
Hassan Serrier
Affiliation:
Hospices Civils de Lyon, Service d'Evaluation Economique en Santé; Hospices Civils de Lyon, Cellule Innovation, Département de la Recherche Clinique et de l'Innovation
Daniel Grinberg
Affiliation:
Service de Chirurgie Cardiaque, Hôpital Cardiologique Louis Pradel, Université Claude Bernard
*
Author for correspondence: Pascale Guerre, E-mail: pascale.guerre@chu-lyon.fr
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objectives

Cardiac surgery has seen substantial scientific progress over recent decades. Health economic evaluations have become important tools for decision makers to prioritize scarce health resources. The present study aimed to identify and critically appraise the reporting quality of health economic evaluations conducted in the field of cardiac surgery.

Methods

A literature search was performed to identify health economic evaluations in cardiac surgery. The consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement was used to assess the quality of reporting of studies.

Results

A total 4,705 articles published between 1981 and 2016 were identified; sixty-nine studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria. There was a trend toward a greater number of publications and reporting quality over time. Six (8.7 percent) studies were conducted between 1981 and 1990, nine (13 percent) between 1991 and 2000, twenty-four (34.8 percent) between 2001 and 2010, and thirty (43.5 percent) after 2011. The mean CHEERS score of all articles was 16.7/24; for those published between 1980 and 1990 the mean (SD) score was 10.2 (±1.4), for those published between 1991 and 2000 it was 11.2 (±2.4), between 2001 and 2010 it was 15.3 (±4.8), and after 2011 it was 19.9 (±2.9). The quality of reporting was still insufficient for several studies after 2000, especially concerning items “characterizing heterogeneity,” “assumptions,” and “choice of model.”

Conclusions

The present study suggests that, even if the quantity and the quality of health economics evaluation in cardiac surgery has increased, there remains a need for improvement in several reporting criteria to ensure greater transparency.

Keywords

Economic evaluationQuality assessmentCardiac surgery procedures
Type
Assessment
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 35 , Issue 1 , 2019 , pp. 45 - 49
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2019 

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

1.Drummond, MF, Sculpher, M, Claxton, K, Stoddart, GL, Torrance, GW (2015) Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. 4th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, p. 461 p.Google Scholar
2.Husereau, D, Drummond, M, Petrou, S, et al. (2013) Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement. PharmacoEconomics 31, 361–367.10.1007/s40273-013-0032-yGoogle Scholar
3.Neumann, PJ, Stone, PW, Chapman, RH, Sandberg, EA, Bell, CM (2000) The quality of reporting in published cost-utility analyses, 1976–1997. Ann Intern Med 132, 964–972.10.7326/0003-4819-132-12-200006200-00007Google Scholar
4.Cohen, DJ, Sukin, CA (1997) Cost-effectiveness of coronary interventions. Heart 78(Suppl 2), 7–10.10.1136/hrt.78.Suppl_2.7Google Scholar
5.Bodenheimer, T (2005) High and rising health care costs. Part 2: Technologic innovation. Ann Intern Med 142, 932–937.10.7326/0003-4819-142-11-200506070-00012Google Scholar
6.Newhouse, JP (1992) Medical care costs: How much welfare loss? J Econ Perspect 6, 3–21.10.1257/jep.6.3.3Google Scholar
7.Okunad, AA, Murthy, VN (2002) Technology as a ‘major driver’ of health care costs: A cointegration analysis of the Newhouse conjecture. J Health Econ 21, 147–159.10.1016/S0167-6296(01)00122-9Google Scholar
8.McNeil, BJ (2001) Shattuck Lecture--Hidden barriers to improvement in the quality of care. N Engl J Med 345, 1612–1620.10.1056/NEJMsa011810Google Scholar
9.Baker, L, Birnbaum, H, Geppert, J, Mishol, D, Moyneur, E (2003) The relationship between technology availability and health care spending. Health Aff (Millwood), Suppl Web Exclusives, W3-537-51.10.1377/hlthaff.W3.537Google Scholar
10.Bell, CM, Urbach, DR, Ray, JG, et al. (2006) Bias in published cost effectiveness studies: Systematic review. BMJ 332, 699–703.10.1136/bmj.38737.607558.80Google Scholar
11.Yaghoubi, M, Aghayan, HR, Arjmand, B, Emami-Razavi, SH (2011) Cost-effectiveness of homograft heart valve replacement surgery: An introductory study. Cell Tissue Bank 12, 153–158.10.1007/s10561-009-9165-9Google Scholar
12.Osnabrugge, RL, Speir, AM, Head, SJ, et al. (2013) Costs for surgical aortic valve replacement according to preoperative risk categories. Ann Thorac Surg 96, 500–506.10.1016/j.athoracsur.2013.04.038Google Scholar
13.Coelho, P, Rodrigues, V, Miranda, L, Fragata, J, Pita Barros, P (2017) Do prices reflect the costs of cardiac surgery in the elderly? Rev Port Cardiol 36, 35–41.10.1016/j.repc.2016.08.006Google Scholar
14.HAS (2007) Chirurgie cardiaque avec ou sans circulation extracorporelle (CEC): Place du second chirurgien. [cited June 26, 2017]. https://www.has-sante.fr/portail/upload/docs/application/pdf/rapport_second_chirurgien_en_chir_cardiaque.pdf.Google Scholar
15.Weinstein, MC, O'Brien, B, Hornberger, J, et al. (2003) Principles of good practice for decision analytic modeling in health-care evaluation: Report of the ISPOR Task Force on Good Research Practices--Modeling Studies. Value Health 6, 9–17.10.1046/j.1524-4733.2003.00234.xGoogle Scholar
16.Williams, A (1974) The cost-benefit approach. Br Med Bull 30, 252–256.10.1093/oxfordjournals.bmb.a071211Google Scholar
17.Drummond, MF, Jefferson, TO (1996) Guidelines for authors and peer reviewers of economic submissions to the BMJ. The BMJ Economic Evaluation Working Party. BMJ 313, 275–283.10.1136/bmj.313.7052.275Google Scholar
18.Ma, H, Jian, W, Xu, T, et al. (2016) Quality of pharmacoeconomic research in China: A systematic review. Medicine 95, e5114.10.1097/MD.0000000000005114Google Scholar
19.Wijnen, BFM, van Mastrigt, G, Evers, S, et al. (2017) A systematic review of economic evaluations of treatments for patients with epilepsy. Epilepsia 58, 706–726.10.1111/epi.13655Google Scholar
20.Tarricone, R, Callea, G, Ogorevc, M, Prevolnik Rupel, V (2017) Improving the methods for the economic evaluation of medical devices. Health Econ 26(Suppl 1), 70–92.10.1002/hec.3471Google Scholar
21.Aguiar, PM, Lima, TM, Storpirtis, S (2016) Systematic review of the economic evaluations of novel therapeutic agents in multiple myeloma: What is the reporting quality? J Clin Pharm Ther 41, 189–197.10.1111/jcpt.12384Google Scholar
22.Garattini, L, Koleva, D, Casadei, G (2010) Modeling in pharmacoeconomic studies: Funding sources and outcomes. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 26, 330–3. Epub 2010/06/30.10.1017/S0266462310000322Google Scholar
23.Jefferson, T, Demicheli, V, Vale, L (2002) Quality of systematic reviews of economic evaluations in health care. JAMA 287, 2809–2812.10.1001/jama.287.21.2809Google Scholar
24.Gonzalez-Perez, JG (2002) Developing a scoring system to quality assess economic evaluations. Eur J Health Econ 3, 131–136.10.1007/s10198-002-0100-2Google Scholar
25.Gerkens, S, Crott, R, Cleemput, I, et al. (2008) Comparison of three instruments assessing the quality of economic evaluations: A practical exercise on economic evaluations of the surgical treatment of obesity. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 24, 318–325.10.1017/S0266462308080422Google Scholar