Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29636046›Full record

SynthesisBMC health services research2018

Health economic evaluations based on routine data in Germany: a systematic review.

Fabia Mareike Gansen

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC health services research, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
5.6field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
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

19 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 32 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Economic Evaluations Informed Exclusively by Real World Data: A Systematic Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020
    Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. [Monitoring of HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis in Germany based on statutory health insurance claims data].Bundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Observational
  9. Article
  10. Quality of life and healthcare costs of patients with allergic respiratory diseases: a cross-sectional study.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2024
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Cost-benefit analysis of the CoCare intervention to improve medical care in long-term care nursing homes: an analysis based on claims data.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2023
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
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

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

Fabia Mareike GansenDepartment of Health Care Management, Institute of Public Health and Nursing Research, Health Sciences, University of Bremen, Grazer Str. 2a, 28359, Bremen, Germany. gansen@ipp.uni-bremen.de.
University of Bremen · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundImproved data access and funding for health services research have promoted the application of routine data to measure costs and effects of interventions within the German health care system. Following the trend towards real world evidence, this review aims to evaluate the status and quality of health economic evaluations based on routine data in Germany.

methodsTo identify relevant economic evaluations, a systematic literature search in the databases PubMed and EMBASE was complemented by a manual search. The included studies had to be full economic evaluations using German routine data to measure either costs, effects, or both. Study characteristics were assessed with a structured template. Additionally, the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) were used to measure quality of reporting.

resultsIn total, 912 records were identified and 35 studies were included in the further analysis. The majority of these studies was published in the past 5 years (n = 27, 77.1%) and used insurance claims data as a source of routine data (n = 30, 85.7%). The most common method used for handling selection bias was propensity score matching. With regard to the reporting quality, 42.9% (n = 15) of the studies satisfied at least 80% of the criteria on the CHEERS checklist.

conclusionsThis review confirms that routine data has become an increasingly common data source for health economic evaluations in Germany. While most studies addressed the application of routine data, this analysis reveals deficits in considering methodological particularities and in reporting quality of economic evaluations based on routine data. Nevertheless, this review demonstrates the overall potential of routine data for economic evaluations.

Indexed as

Advisory CommitteesChecklistCost-Benefit AnalysisDelivery of Health CareEconomics, MedicalGermanyHealth Services ResearchHumansAdministrative dataCost-consequences analysisCost-effectiveness analysisEconomic evaluationGermanyRoutine data

Identifiers

PMID29636046
PMCPMC5894241
OpenAlexW2803380008

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.