Cover Image

Quality appraisal in systematic literature reviews of studies eliciting health state utility values: Conceptual Considerations

Background The increasing number of studies that generate health state utility values (HSUVs) and the impact of HSUVs on cost-utility analyses make a robust tailored quality appraisal (QA) tool for systematic reviews of these studies necessary. Objective This study aimed to address conceptual issues...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Muchadeyi, Muchandifunga Trust (Author) , Hernandez-Villafuerte, Karla (Author) , Di Tanna, Gian Luca (Author) , Eckford, Rachel (Author) , Feng, Yan (Author) , Meregaglia, Michela (Author) , Peasgood, Tessa (Author) , Petrou, Stavros (Author) , Ubels, Jasper (Author) , Schlander, Michael (Author)
Format: Article (Journal)
Language:English
Published: July 2024
In: PharmacoEconomics
Year: 2024, Volume: 42, Issue: 7, Pages: 767-782
ISSN:1179-2027
DOI:10.1007/s40273-024-01365-z
Online Access:Verlag, kostenfrei, Volltext: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-024-01365-z
Verlag, kostenfrei, Volltext: https://link-springer-com.ezproxy.medma.uni-heidelberg.de/article/10.1007/s40273-024-01365-z
Get full text
Author Notes:Muchandifunga Trust Muchadeyi, Karla Hernandez-Villafuerte, Gian Luca Di Tanna, Rachel D. Eckford, Yan Feng, Michela Meregaglia, Tessa Peasgood, Stavros Petrou, Jasper Ubels, Michael Schlander
Description
Summary:Background The increasing number of studies that generate health state utility values (HSUVs) and the impact of HSUVs on cost-utility analyses make a robust tailored quality appraisal (QA) tool for systematic reviews of these studies necessary. Objective This study aimed to address conceptual issues regarding QA in systematic reviews of studies eliciting HSUVs by establishing a consensus on the definitions, dimensions and scope of a QA tool specific to this context. Methods A modified Delphi method was used in this study. An international multidisciplinary panel of seven experts was purposively assembled. The experts engaged in two anonymous online survey rounds. After each round, the experts received structured and controlled feedback on the previous phase. Controlled feedback allowed the experts to re-evaluate and adjust their positions based on collective insights. Following these surveys, a virtual face-to-face meeting was held to resolve outstanding issues. Consensus was defined a priori at all stages of the modified Delphi process. Results The response rates to the first-round and second-round questionnaires and the virtual consensus meeting were 100%, 86% and 71%, respectively. The entire process culminated in a consensus on the definitions of scientific quality, QA, the three QA dimensions—reporting, relevance and methodological quality—and the scope of a QA tool specific to studies that elicit HSUVs. Conclusions Achieving this consensus marks a pivotal step towards developing a QA tool specific to systematic reviews of studies eliciting HSUVs. Future research will build on this foundation, identify QA items, signalling questions and response options, and develop a QA tool specific to studies eliciting HSUVs.
Item Description:Online veröffentlicht: 29. März 2024
Gesehen am 18.03.2025
Physical Description:Online Resource
ISSN:1179-2027
DOI:10.1007/s40273-024-01365-z

Similar Items