Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29750430›Full record

ArticlePharmacoEconomics2018

A Practical Guide to Conducting a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Health State Utility Values.

Stavros Petrou, Joseph Kwon, Jason Madan

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in PharmacoEconomics, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers, 18 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed, 18 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

28 citing papers in PubMed, 18 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. A systematic review of health state utility values for older people with acute myeloid leukaemia.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2024
    Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. The impact of loneliness and social isolation on health state utility values: a systematic literature review.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2022
    Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. Pooled it
  15. Pooled it
  16. Pooled it
  17. Pooled it
  18. Pooled it
  19. Review
  20. 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

3 authors.

Stavros PetrouWarwick Clinical Trials Unit, Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, CV4 7AL, UK. S.Petrou@warwick.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3121-6050
Joseph KwonSchool of Health and Related Research, The University of Sheffield, 30 Regent St, Sheffield, S1 4DA, UK.
Jason MadanWarwick Clinical Trials Unit, Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, CV4 7AL, UK.

Funding

Medical Research Council G0501681Medical Research Council G0700452
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Economic analysts are increasingly likely to rely on systematic reviews and meta-analyses of health state utility values to inform the parameter inputs of decision-analytic modelling-based economic evaluations. Beyond the context of economic evaluation, evidence from systematic reviews and meta-analyses of health state utility values can be used to inform broader health policy decisions. This paper provides practical guidance on how to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of health state utility values. The paper outlines a number of stages in conducting a systematic review, including identifying the appropriate evidence, study selection, data extraction and presentation, and quality and relevance assessment. The paper outlines three broad approaches that can be used to synthesise multiple estimates of health utilities for a given health state or condition, namely fixed-effect meta-analysis, random-effects meta-analysis and mixed-effects meta-regression. Each approach is illustrated by a synthesis of utility values for a hypothetical decision problem, and software code is provided. The paper highlights a number of methodological issues pertinent to the conduct of meta-analysis or meta-regression. These include the importance of limiting synthesis to 'comparable' utility estimates, for example those derived using common utility measurement approaches and sources of valuation; the effects of reliance on limited or poorly reported published data from primary utility assessment studies; the use of aggregate outcomes within analyses; approaches to generating measures of uncertainty; handling of median utility values; challenges surrounding the disentanglement of utility estimates collected serially within the context of prospective observational studies or prospective randomised trials; challenges surrounding the disentanglement of intervention effects; and approaches to measuring model validity. Areas of methodological debate and avenues for future research are highlighted.

Indexed as

Guidelines as TopicMeta-Analysis as TopicSystematic Reviews as TopicDecision Support TechniquesHealth StatusHumans

Identifiers

PMID29750430

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.