An analysis of the effectiveness outcomes of economic studies evaluating ophthalmic drugs: a systematic review
An analysis of the effectiveness outcomes of economic studies evaluating ophthalmic drugs: a systematic review
Purpose: To characterize the effectiveness measures of cost-effectiveness studies (CES) of ophthalmic drugs.
Methods: A systematic review was conducted in PubMed/Embase until October 2019. Cost-effectiveness studies (CES) evaluating ophthalmic drugs were included. Sources of effectiveness measures were extracted. Data on study design and study outcomes were extracted from sources of effectiveness measures. The adequacy of the sample size of the clinical studies used as sources of effectiveness measures was assessed. If CES have retrieved effectiveness data from multiple sources, the appropriateness of the method to combine the results was analysed.RESULTS: Forty-five CES were included. Thirty-one (68.9%) retrieved their effectiveness measures from experimental studies, five (11.1%) from observational studies and nine (20%) from other type of data sources. Eight (17.8%) CES used data from a primary outcome of a study as an effectiveness measure, eight (17.8%) used data from secondary outcomes, seven (15.6%) used data from the both primary and secondary outcomes and for 22 (48.9%) it was not possible to identify the outcomes used. From the 23 (51.1%) CES based on a single clinical study, three (6.7%) included data from clinical studies which had an adequate sample size to detect significant differences in the clinical outcomes used as effectiveness measures. From the 17 (37.8%) CES based on multiple clinical studies, only one (2.2%) used and/or reported an adequate method of quantitative synthesis (meta-analysis).
Conclusion: A considerable number of CES in ophthalmology were not based on clinical studies with adequate sample sizes and report results from effectiveness measures not assessed as primary outcomes.
Cost-Benefit Analysis, Eye Diseases/drug therapy, Humans, Ophthalmology/economics
237-243
Ribeiro, Inês
2fd1901b-61bd-4ad5-81b3-a3f8145ec144
Batel Marques, Francisco
d4b92633-e7cf-4150-946b-d49d32da1c79
Alves, Dalila
1b0d9d63-b0c0-4093-9a14-ea1464e46a97
Alves, Carlos
a9602cd6-9233-4f9f-9180-dc1026403e6b
1 May 2020
Ribeiro, Inês
2fd1901b-61bd-4ad5-81b3-a3f8145ec144
Batel Marques, Francisco
d4b92633-e7cf-4150-946b-d49d32da1c79
Alves, Dalila
1b0d9d63-b0c0-4093-9a14-ea1464e46a97
Alves, Carlos
a9602cd6-9233-4f9f-9180-dc1026403e6b
Ribeiro, Inês, Batel Marques, Francisco, Alves, Dalila and Alves, Carlos
(2020)
An analysis of the effectiveness outcomes of economic studies evaluating ophthalmic drugs: a systematic review.
Acta Ophthalmologica, 98 (3), .
(doi:10.1111/aos.14362).
Abstract
Purpose: To characterize the effectiveness measures of cost-effectiveness studies (CES) of ophthalmic drugs.
Methods: A systematic review was conducted in PubMed/Embase until October 2019. Cost-effectiveness studies (CES) evaluating ophthalmic drugs were included. Sources of effectiveness measures were extracted. Data on study design and study outcomes were extracted from sources of effectiveness measures. The adequacy of the sample size of the clinical studies used as sources of effectiveness measures was assessed. If CES have retrieved effectiveness data from multiple sources, the appropriateness of the method to combine the results was analysed.RESULTS: Forty-five CES were included. Thirty-one (68.9%) retrieved their effectiveness measures from experimental studies, five (11.1%) from observational studies and nine (20%) from other type of data sources. Eight (17.8%) CES used data from a primary outcome of a study as an effectiveness measure, eight (17.8%) used data from secondary outcomes, seven (15.6%) used data from the both primary and secondary outcomes and for 22 (48.9%) it was not possible to identify the outcomes used. From the 23 (51.1%) CES based on a single clinical study, three (6.7%) included data from clinical studies which had an adequate sample size to detect significant differences in the clinical outcomes used as effectiveness measures. From the 17 (37.8%) CES based on multiple clinical studies, only one (2.2%) used and/or reported an adequate method of quantitative synthesis (meta-analysis).
Conclusion: A considerable number of CES in ophthalmology were not based on clinical studies with adequate sample sizes and report results from effectiveness measures not assessed as primary outcomes.
This record has no associated files available for download.
More information
Accepted/In Press date: 5 January 2020
Published date: 1 May 2020
Keywords:
Cost-Benefit Analysis, Eye Diseases/drug therapy, Humans, Ophthalmology/economics
Identifiers
Local EPrints ID: 474705
URI: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/474705
ISSN: 1755-375X
PURE UUID: 2f765376-5a49-4692-94a1-f60e053cb855
Catalogue record
Date deposited: 01 Mar 2023 18:01
Last modified: 17 Mar 2024 04:01
Export record
Altmetrics
Contributors
Author:
Francisco Batel Marques
Author:
Dalila Alves
Author:
Carlos Alves
Download statistics
Downloads from ePrints over the past year. Other digital versions may also be available to download e.g. from the publisher's website.
View more statistics