Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29541630›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in public health2018

Systematic Review of Health Economic Evaluation Studies Developed in Brazil from 1980 to 2013.

Tassia Cristina Decimoni, Roseli Leandro, Luciana Martins Rozman, Dawn Craig, Cynthia P Iglesias, Hillegonda Maria Dutilh Novaes, Patrícia Coelho de Soárez

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in public health, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

13 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Article
  7. Unit Costs in Health Economic Evaluations: Quo Vadis, Austria?International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Tassia Cristina DecimoniDepartment of Preventive Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.
Roseli LeandroDepartment of Preventive Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.
Luciana Martins RozmanDepartment of Preventive Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.
Dawn CraigInstitute of Health and Society, Newcastle University, Newcastle, United Kingdom.
Cynthia P IglesiasCenter for Health Economics, University of York, York, United Kingdom.
Hillegonda Maria Dutilh NovaesDepartment of Preventive Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.
Patrícia Coelho de SoárezDepartment of Preventive Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.

Funding

Medical Research Council G0501892
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundBrazil has sought to use economic evaluation to support healthcare decision-making processes. While a number of health economic evaluations (HEEs) have been conducted, no study has systematically reviewed the quality of Brazilian HEE. The objective of this systematic review was to provide an overview regarding the state of HEE research and to evaluate the number, characteristics, and quality of reporting of published HEE studies conducted in a Brazilian setting.

methodsWe systematically searched electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Latin American, and Caribbean Literature on Health Sciences Database, Scientific Electronic Library Online, NHS Economic Evaluation Database, health technology assessment Database, Bireme, and

resultsIn total, 535 studies were included in the review, 36.8% of these were considered to be full HEE. The category of healthcare technologies more frequently assessed were procedures (34.8%) and drugs (28.8%) which main objective was treatment (72.1%). Forty-four percent of the studies reported their funding source and 36% reported a conflict of interest. Overall, the full HEE quality of reporting was satisfactory. But some items were generally poorly reported and significant improvement is required: (1) methods used to estimate healthcare resource use quantities and unit costs, (2) methods used to estimate utility values, (3) sources of funding, and (4) conflicts of interest.

conclusionA steady number of HEE have been published in Brazil since 1980. To improve their contribution to inform national healthcare policy efforts need to be made to enhance the quality of reporting of HEEs and promote improvements in the way HEEs are designed, implemented (i.e., using sound methods for HEEs) and reported.

Indexed as

Brazilcost-benefit analysiscost-effectivenesseconomic evaluationhealth technology assessment

Identifiers

PMID29541630
PMCPMC5835950

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.