How to prepare a systematic review of economic evaluations for informing evidence-based healthcare decisions: a five-step approach (part 1/3)

References

• Shemilt I, McDaid D, Marsh K, et al. Issues in the incorporation of economic perspectives and evidence into cochrane reviews. Syst Rev. 2013;2:83.
   Google Scholar
• Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Bmj. 2009;339:b2535.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grant MJ. A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Inf Libraries J. 2009;26(2):91–108.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shemilt I. Evidence-based decisions and economics, health care, social welfare education and criminal justice. second ed. Chichester: Wiely-Blackwell; 2010.
   Google Scholar
• Khan KS, Kunz R, Kleijnen J, et al. Five steps to conducting a systematic review. J R Soc Med. 2003;96(3):118–121.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pharmaeconomic Guidelines [http://www.ispor.org/peguidelines/index.asp]
   Google Scholar
• Akers J, Aguiar-Ibáñez R, Baba-Akbari Sari A. CRD’s guidance for undertaking reviews in health care. York (UK): Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD); 2009.
   Google Scholar
• Brunetti M, Shemilt I, Pregno S, et al. GRADE guidelines: 10. Considering resource use and rating the quality of economic evidence. J Clin Epidemiol. 2013;66(2):140–150.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Qaseem A, Forland F, Macbeth F, et al. Guidelines international network: toward international standards for clinical practice guidelines. Ann Intern Med. 2012;156(7):525–531.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality: methods guide for effectiveness and comparative effectiveness reviews: agency for healthcare research and quality. Rockville (MD): Bookshelf; 2008.
   Google Scholar
• Developing NICE guidelines: the manual. [http://www.nice.org.uk/article/PMG20/chapter/7-Incorporating-economic-evaluation]
   Google Scholar
• Higgins J, Green S. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 5.1. 0. Chichester: The Cochrane Collaboration; 2013.
   Google Scholar
• Institute JB. Joanna Briggs institute reviewers’ manual 2014. [Internet]. Adelaide: JBI; 2014. cited 2015 May 15.
   Google Scholar
• Institute of Medicine. GRADE working group. [http://www.gradeworkinggroup.org/]
   Google Scholar
• Finding what works in health care: standards for systematic reviews. Washington DC: Institute of Medicine; 2011.
   Google Scholar
• Brouwers MC, Kho ME, Browman GP, et al. AGREE II: advancing guideline development, reporting and evaluation in health care. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010;63(12):1308–1311.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brunetti M, Ruiz F, Lord J, et al. Grading economic evidence. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell; 2010.
   Google Scholar
• Thielen FW, Van Mastrigt GAPG, Burgers LT, et al. How to prepare a systematic review of economic evaluations for informing evidence-based healthcare decisions: database selection and search strategy development (part 2/3). doi:10.1080/14737167.2016.1246962. [Epub ahead of print]
   Google Scholar
• Wijnen B, Van Mastrigt GAPG, Redekop WK, et al. How to prepare a systematic review of economic evaluations for informing evidence-based healthcare decisions: data extraction, risk of bias, and transferability (part 3/3). doi:10.1080/14737167.2016.1246961. [Epub ahead of print]
   Google Scholar
• Drummond M, Schulper MJ, Claxton K, et al. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. 4th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2016.
   Google Scholar
• Gold M, Siegel J, Russell L, et al. Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine: report of the panel on cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. New York: Oxford University Press; 1996.
   Google Scholar
• Mauskopf JA, Sullivan SD, Annemans L, et al. Principles of good practice for budget impact analysis: report of the ISPOR task force on good research practices–budget impact analysis. Value Health. 2007;10(5):336–347.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sullivan SD, Mauskopf JA, Augustovski F: Principles of good practice for budget impact analysis II: report of the ISPOR task force on good research practices – budget impact analysis. Value Health 2014, 175–14.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Briggs A, Fenn P. Confidence intervals or surfaces? Uncertainty on the cost-effectiveness plane. Health Econ. 1998;7(8):723–740.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Medicine Io. Clinical practice guidelines we can trust. Washington: The national academies press; 2011.
   Google Scholar
• World Health Organisation. WHO handbook for guideline development. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2014.
   Google Scholar
• Moher D, Shamseer L, Clarke M, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Syst Rev. 2015;4(1):1.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beller EM, Glasziou PP, Altman DG, et al. PRISMA for abstracts: reporting systematic reviews in journal and conference abstracts prisma for abstracts group. PLoS Med. 2013;10(4):e1001419.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Husereau D, Drummond M, Petrou S, et al. Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement. Value Health. 2013;16(2):e1–5.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schunemann HJ, Al-Ansary LA, Forland F, et al. Guidelines international network: principles for disclosure of interests and management of conflicts in guidelines. Ann Intern Med. 2015;163(7):548–553.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schünemann HJ, Jaeschke R, Cook DJ, et al. An official ATS statement: grading the quality of evidence and strength of recommendations in ATS guidelines and recommendations. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2006;174(5):605–614.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• International prospective registry of systematic reviews. [http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/]
   Google Scholar
• Cochrane collaboration. [www.cochrane.org]
   Google Scholar
• Petticrew M, Roberts H. Systematic reviews in the social sciences: A practical guide. Oxford: Blackwell; 2006.
   Google Scholar
• Wijnen B, Van Mastrigt G, Evers S, et al. A systematic review of economic evaluations of treatments for patients with epilepsy. submitted.
   Google Scholar
• Smith V, Devane D, Begley CM, et al. Methodology in conducting a systematic review of systematic reviews of healthcare interventions. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2011;11(1):1–6.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Russell R, Chung M, Balk EM, et al. Issues and challenges in conducting systematic reviews to support development of nutrient reference values: workshop summary: nutrition research series, Vol. 2. (US), Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2009.
   Google Scholar
• Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration.PLoS Medicine.2009;6(7).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moher D, Booth A, Stewart L. How to reduce unnecessary duplication: use PROSPERO. Bjog. 2014;121(7):784–786.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Straus S, Moher D. Registering systematic reviews. Cmaj. 2010;182(1):13–14.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bouter LM. Commentary: perverse incentives or rotten apples? Account Res. 2015;22(3):148–161.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• http://systematicreviewtools.com/tool.
   Google Scholar
• Critical Reviews Advisory Group. Introduction to systematic reviews. [http://​www.​shef.​ac.​uk/​scharr]
   Google Scholar
• Sassi F, Archard L, McDaid D. Searching literature databases for health care economic evaluations: how systematic can we afford to be? Med Care. 2002;40(5):387–394.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Glanville J, Kaunelis D, Mensinkai S. How well do search filters perform in identifying economic evaluations in MEDLINE and EMBASE. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2009;25(04):522–529.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• [www.ispor.org/]
   Google Scholar
• [https://colloquium.cochrane.org/]
   Google Scholar
• The Joanna Briggs Institute Reviewers’ Manual 2015, Methodology for JBI Scoping Reviews. Adelaide: Joanna Briggs Institute; 2015.
   Google Scholar
• HEALTHECON-ALL. [https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A1=ind1604&L=HEALTHECON-ALL]
   Google Scholar
• Bramer WM, Mast F, Kleijnen J. Librarian-mediated literature searches for systematic reviews at erasmus MC: much faster but with equal quality. In: European association for health information and libraries conference: 2016. Sevilla, Spain; 2016.
   Google Scholar
• Brettle AJ, Long AF, Grant MJ, et al. Searching for information on outcomes: do you need to be comprehensive? Qual Health Care. 1998;7(3):163–167.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• The InterTASC Information Specialists’ Sub-Group Search Filter Resource [https://sites.google.com/a/york.ac.uk/issg-search-filters-resource/home]
   Google Scholar
• Sampson MMJ, Lefebvre C. An evidence-based checklist for the peer review of electronic search strategies PRESS: Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies. Ottawa: EBC CAfD; 2008.
   Google Scholar
• CADTH Peer Review Checklist for Search Strategies. PRESS: peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies. [http://www.cadth.ca/en/publication/781]
   Google Scholar
• Bramer W, Milic J, Mast F. Reviewing retrieved references for inclusion in systematic reviews using endNote. J Med Lib Assoc. accepted for publication.
   Google Scholar
• Yoshii A, Plaut DA, McGraw KA, et al. Analysis of the reporting of search strategies in Cochrane systematic reviews. J Med Lib Association: JMLA. 2009;97(1):21–29.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bramer W, Holland L, Mollema J, et al. Removing duplicates in retrieval sets from electronic databases: comparing the efficiency and accuracy of the Bramer-method with other methods and software packages. 2014.
   Google Scholar
• Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statementThe PRISMA statement. Ann Intern Med. 2009;151(4):264–269.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mlika-Cabanne N, Harbour R, De Beer H, et al. Sharing hard labour: developing a standard template for data summaries in guideline development. BMJ Qual Saf. 2011;20(2):141–145.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Briggs AH, Weinstein MC, Fenwick EA, et al. Force I-SMGRPT: model parameter estimation and uncertainty: a report of the ISPOR-SMDM modeling good research practices task force-6. Value in Health. 2012;15(6):835–842.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brown GW. On small-sample estimation. Ann Math Stat. 1947;18::582–585.
   Google Scholar
• Adarkwah CC, Van Gils PF, Hiligsmann M. etal. Risk of bias in model-based economic evaluations: the ECOBIAS checklist. Exp Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2015;1–11.
   Google Scholar
• Evers SM, Hiligsmann M, Adarkwah CC. Risk of bias in trial-based economic evaluations: identification of sources and bias-reducing strategies. Psychol Health. 2015;30(1):52–71.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rennie D, Flanagin A. Publication bias: the triumph of hope over experience. Jama. 1992;267(3):411–412.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rennie D, Luft HS. Pharmacoeconomic analyses: making them transparent, making them credible. Jama. 2000;283(16):2158–2160.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Caro JJ, Eddy DM, Kan H, et al. Questionnaire to assess relevance and credibility of modeling studies for informing health care decision making: an ISPOR-AMCP-NPC good practice task force report. Value in Health. 2014;17(2):174–182.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Consensus Health Economic Criteria - CHEC list [https://hsr.mumc.maastrichtuniversity.nl/consensus-health-economic-criteria-chec-list]
   Google Scholar
• Evers S, Goossens M, De Vet H, et al. Criteria list for assessment of methodological quality of economic evaluations: consensus on health economic criteria. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2005;21(02):240–245.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Odnoletkova I, Goderis G, Pil L, et al. 2014. Cost-effectiveness of therapeutic education to prevent the development and progression of type 2 diabetes: systematic review. J Diabetes Metab 5:438. doi:10.4172/2155-6156.1000438
   Google Scholar
• Drummond MF, Jefferson. Guidelines for authors and peer reviewers of economic submissions to the BMJ. 1996;313(7052):275–283.
   Google Scholar
• Philips Z, Bojke L, Sculpher M, et al. Good practice guidelines for decision-analytic modelling in health technology assessment. Pharmacoeconomics. 2006;24(4):355–371.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist GE, et al. GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. Bmj. 2008;336(7650):924–926.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brunetti M, Shemilt I, Pregno S, et al. GRADE guidelines: 10. Considering resource use and rating the quality of economic evidence. J Clin Epidemiol. 2013;66(2):140–150.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Developing NICE guidelines: the manual appendix H. [https://www.nice.org.uk/article/PMG21/chapter/Appendix-H-Appraisal-checklists-evidence-tables-GRADE-and-economic-profiles]
   Google Scholar
• Currie G, Manns B. Glossary of terms for health economics and systematic reviews. In: Donaldson C, Mugford M, Vale L, Editors. Evidence-based health economics: from effectiveness tot efficiency in systematic review. London: BMJ Books; 2002.
   Google Scholar
• Drummond M, Barbieri M, Cook J, et al. Transferability of economic evaluations across jurisdictions: ISPOR good research practices task force report. Value Health. 2009;12(4):409–418.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Walker DG, Teerawattananon Y, Anderson A, et al. Generalizability, transferability, complexity and relevance. In: Shemilt I, Mugford M, Vale L, et al., Editors. Evidence-based desisions and economics. 2 nd ed. Chichester: Blackwell Publishing; 2010.
   Google Scholar
• Welte R, Feenstra T, Jager H, et al. A decision chart for assessing and improving the transferability of economic evaluation results between countries. Pharmacoeconomics. 2004;22(13):857–876.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mauskopf J, Rutten F, Schonfeld W. Cost-effectiveness league tables. PharmacoEconomics. 2012;21(14):991–1000.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• CCEMG - EPPI-Centre Cost Converter [http://eppi.ioe.ac.uk/costconversion/default.aspx]
   Google Scholar
• Hill SR, Olson LG, Falck-Ytter Y, et al. Incorporating considerations of cost-effectiveness, affordability, and resource implications in guideline development: article 6 in integrating and coordinating efforts in COPD guideline development. An official ATS/ERS workshop report. Proc Am Thorac Soc. 2012;9(5):251–255.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Nixon J, Khan KS, Kleijnen J. Summarising economic evaluations in systematic reviews: a new approach. Bmj. 2001;322(7302):1596–1598.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Knies S, Ament AJ, Evers SM, et al. The transferability of economic evaluations: testing the model of Welte. Value Health. 2009;12(5):730–738.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De kinderen RJ, Lambrechts DAJE, Wijnen BFM, et al. An economic evaluation of the ketogenic diet versus care as usual in children and adolescents with intractable epilepsy: An interim analysis. Epilepsia. 2016;57(1):41–50.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Search Filter Resource. [[https://sites.google.com/a/york.ac.uk/issg-search-filters-resource/home]]
   Google Scholar
• Drummond MF, Jefferson T. Guidelines for authors and peer reviewers of economic submissions to the BMJ. Bmj. 1996;313(7052):275–283.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brunetti M, Ruiz F, Lord J, et al. Grading economic evidence. In: evidence-based decisions and economics. Shemilt I, Mugford M, Vale L, et al., Editors. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell; 2010.
   Google Scholar