A scoping review of pediatric economic evaluation 1980-2014: do trends over time reflect changing priorities in evaluation methods and childhood disease?

References

• Griebsch I, Coast J, Brown J. Quality-adjusted life-years lack quality in pediatric care: a critical review of published cost-utility studies in child health. Pediatrics. 2005;115:2004–2127.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Keren R, Pati S, Feudtner C. The Generation Gap: differences between children and adults pertinent to economic evaluations of health interventions. Pharmacoeconomics. 2004;22:71–81.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tilford JM. Cost-effectiveness analysis and emergency medical services for children: issues and applications. Ambul Pediatr. 2002;2:330–336.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Ungar WJ, Gerber A. The uniqueness of child health and challenges to measuring costs and consequences. In: Ungar WJ, editor. Economic evaluation in child health. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2010.
   Google Scholar
• Ungar WJ. The Pediatric Economic Database Evaluation (PEDE) project. Toronto: The Hospital for Sick Children; 2015. [cited 2016 Apr 26]. Available from: http://pede.ccb.sickkids.ca/pede/index.jsp
   Google Scholar
• Ungar WJ, Santos MT. The Pediatric Economic Database Evaluation (PEDE) project: establishing a database to study trends in pediatric economic evaluation. Med Care. 2003;41:1142–1152.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ungar WJ. Paediatric health economic evaluations: a world view. Healthc Q. 2006;10(134–140):42–45.
   Google Scholar
• Ungar WJ, Santos MT. Trends in paediatric health economic evaluation: 1980 to 1999. Arch Dis Child. 2004;89:26–29.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ungar WJ, Zur RM. Health economic evaluation for improving child health in low- and middle-income countries. In: Macleod S, Hill S, Rane A, editors. Challenges in optimizing drug treatment for children in the developing world. New York: Springer Press; 2015.
   Google Scholar
• Au F, Prahardhi S, Shiell A. Reliability of two instruments for critical assessment of economic evaluations. Value Health. 2008;11:435–439.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ungar WJ, Santos MT. The Pediatric Quality Appraisal Questionnaire: an instrument for evaluation of the pediatric health economics literature. Value Health. 2003;6:584–594.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ungar WJ, Santos MT. Quality appraisal of pediatric health economic evaluations. Int J Technol Assessm Health Care. 2005;21:203–210.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kromm SK, Bethell J, Kraglund F, et al. Characteristics and quality of pediatric cost-utility analyses. Qual Life Res. 2012;21:1315–1325.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Adlard N, Kinghorn P, Frew E. Is the UK NICE “reference case” influencing the practice of pediatric quality-adjusted life-year measurement within economic evaluations? Value Health. 2014;17:454–461.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sung L, Petrou S, Ungar WJ. Measurement of health utilities in children. In: Ungar WJ, editor. Economic evaluation in child health. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2010.
   Google Scholar
• Ungar WJ. Challenges in health state valuation in paediatric economic evaluation: are QALYs contraindicated? Pharmacoeconomics. 2011;29:641–652.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• The Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health. Guidelines for the economic evaluation of health technologies: Canada. Ottawa: Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health; 2006.
   Google Scholar
• The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Guide to the methods of technology appraisal. London: National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence; 2008.
   Google Scholar
• Stevens K. Developing a descriptive system for a new preference-based measure of health-related quality of life for children. Qual Life Res. 2009;18:1105–1113.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stevens K. Assessing the performance of a new generic measure of health-related quality of life for children and refining it for use in health state valuation. Appl Health Econ Health Pol. 2011;9:1–13.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Stevens K. Valuation of the child health utility index 9D (CHU9D). Pharmacoeconomics. 2012;30:729–747.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stevens KJ. Working with children to develop dimensions for a preference-based, generic, pediatric health-related quality-of-life measure. Qual Health Res. 2010;20:340–351.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ravens-Sieberer U, Wille N, Badia X, et al. Feasibility, reliability, and validity of the EQ-5D-Y: results from amultinational study. Qual Life Res. 2010;19:887–897.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wille N, Badia X, Bonsel G, et al. Development of the EQ-5D-Y: a child-friendly version of the EQ-5D. Qual Life Res. 2010;19:875–886.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moodie M, Richardson J, Rankin B, et al. Predicting time trade-off health state valuations of adolescents in four Pacific countries using the Assessment of Quality-of-Life (AQoL-6D) instrument. Value Health. 2010;13:1014–1027.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Black RE, Morris SS, Bryce J. Where and why are 10 million children dying every year? Lancet. 2003;361:2226–2234.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• World Health Organization (WHO).Maternal, newborn, child and adolescent health. [cited 2016 Apr 4]. Available from: http://www.who.int/maternal_child_adolescent/documents/countries/indicators/dashboards/en/
   Google Scholar
• Temmerman M, Khosla R, Bhutta ZA, et al. Towards a new global strategy for women’s, children’s and adolescents’ health. BMJ. 2015;351:1–3.
   Google Scholar
• Aronson N. Making personalized medicine more affordable. Ann NY Acad Sci. 2015;1346:81–89.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Phillips KA, Trosman JR, Kelley RK, et al. Genomic sequencing: assessing the health care system, policy, and big-data implications. Health Aff (Project Hope). 2014;33:1246–1253.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wright C, Burton H, Hall A, et al. Next steps in the sequence. The implications of whole genome sequencing for health in the UK. Cambridge: PHG Foundation; 2011.
   Google Scholar
• Arksey H, O’Malley L. Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. Int J Soc Res Method: Theor Pract. 2005;8:19–32.
   Google Scholar
• Dijkers M. What is a scoping review? KT Update. 2015;4:1–5.
   Google Scholar
• Harris PA, Taylor R, Thielke R, et al. Research electronic data capture (REDCap) – A metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. J Biomed Inform. 2009;42:377–381.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ungar WJ, Santos M. The Pediatric Economic Database Evaluation (PEDE) project. Ottawa: Canadian Coordinating Office for Health Technology Assessment (CCOHTA); 2002. [cited 2016 Apr 26]. Available from: https://www.cadth.ca/pediatric-economic-database-evaluation-pede-project-0
   Google Scholar
• U. S. Department of Health and Human Services. International classification of diseases, 9th revision, clinical modification (ICD-9-CM). 5th ed. Los Angeles (CA): Practice Management Information Corporation (PMIC); 1999.
   Google Scholar
• World Health Organization (WHO). International statistical classification of diseases and related health problems. 10th Revision. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2010. [cited 2016 Apr 4]. Available from: http://www.who.int/classifications/icd/en/
   Google Scholar
• Drummond MF, Sculpher MJ, Torrance GW, et al. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. 3rd. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2005.
   Google Scholar
• Prosser LA. Current challenges and future research in measuring preferences for pediatric health outcomes. J Pediatr. 2009;155:7–9.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• CEA Cost-effectiveness Analysis Registry. Boston: Tufts Medical Center. [cited 2016 Apr 4]. Available from: https://research.tufts-nemc.org/cear4/default.aspx
   Google Scholar
• The CRD Database. York: University of York Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. [cited 2016 Apr 4]. Available from: http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/CRDWeb/AboutPage.asp
   Google Scholar
• Ladapo JA, Neumann PJ, Keren R, et al. Valuing children’s health: a comparison of cost-utility analyses for adult and paediatric health interventions in the US. Pharmacoeconomics. 2007;25:817–828.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Petrou S. Methodological issues raised by preference-based approaches to measuring the health status of children. Health Econ. 2003;12:697–702.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thorrington D, Eames K, Green C. Measuring health utilities in children and adolescents: a systematic review of the literature. PLoS ONE. 2015;10:e0135672.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Neumann PJ, Thorat T, Shi J, et al. The changing face of the cost-utility literature, 1990–2012. Value Health. 2015;18:271–277.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Were MW, Daelmans B, Bhutta ZA, et al. Children’s health priorities and interventions. BMJ. 2015;351:10–14.
   Google Scholar
• Laski L, Matthews Z, Neal S, et al. Realising the health and wellbeing of adolescents. BMJ. 2015;351:15–18.
   Google Scholar