Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37293924›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of technology assessment in health care2023

Expert opinion on a consensus-based checklist for the critical appraisal of cost-of-illness (COI) studies: qualitative interviews.

Lena Schnitzler, Aggie T G Paulus, Silvia M A A Evers, Tracy E Roberts, Louise J Jackson

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of technology assessment in health care, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

5 authors.

Lena SchnitzlerDepartment of Health Services Research, Care and Public Health Research Institute (CAPHRI), Faculty of Health, Medicine and Life Sciences (FHML), Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4624-6252
Aggie T G PaulusDepartment of Health Services Research, Care and Public Health Research Institute (CAPHRI), Faculty of Health, Medicine and Life Sciences (FHML), Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2086-6106
Silvia M A A EversDepartment of Health Services Research, Care and Public Health Research Institute (CAPHRI), Faculty of Health, Medicine and Life Sciences (FHML), Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1026-570X
Tracy E RobertsHealth Economics Unit, Institute of Applied Health Research, College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0624-0537
Louise J JacksonHealth Economics Unit, Institute of Applied Health Research, College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8492-0020

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThis study explored experts' views on the development of a proposed checklist for cost-of-illness (COI) studies. It also investigated experts' perspectives on the use of COI studies and quality/critical appraisal tools used for COI studies as well as their experiences with the use of these tools.

methodsSemi-structured, open-ended interviews were conducted with health economists and other experts working with COI studies and with experience of developing health economic guidelines or checklists. Participants were selected purposively using network and snowball sampling. A framework approach was applied for the thematic data analysis. Findings were reported narratively.

resultsTwenty-one experts from eleven different countries were interviewed. COI studies were found to be relevant to estimate the overall burden of a disease, to draw attention to disease areas, to understand different cost components, to explain cost variability, to inform decision making, and to provide input for full economic evaluations. Experts reported a lack of a standardized critical appraisal tool for COI studies. Their experience related predominantly to guidelines and checklists designed for full economic evaluations to review and assess COI studies. The following themes emerged when discussing the checklist: (i) the need for a critical appraisal tool, (ii) format and practicality, (iii) assessing the questions, (iv) addressing subjectivity, and (v) guidance requirements.

conclusionsThe interviews provided relevant input for the development of a checklist for COI studies that could be used as a minimum standard and for international application. The interviews confirmed the important need for a checklist for the critical appraisal of COI studies.

Indexed as

ChecklistConsensusCost-Benefit AnalysisCost of IllnessHumansInterviews as TopicPractice Guidelines as TopicchecklistCost-of-illnesscritical appraisal toolinterviewsqualitative analysis

Identifiers

PMID37293924
PMCPMC11574535

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.