Evaluating the Quality of Cost-Effectiveness Literature in Breast Surgery: What Do We Do Well and How Can We Do Better? A Systematic Review

Background Surgical options for breast cancer are numerous and span multiple surgical disciplines. Decision analyses aid surgeons in making the most cost-effective choice, thus reducing health care expenditure while maximizing patient outcome. In this study, we aimed to evaluate existing breast surgery cost-effectiveness literature against the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) validated scoring system. Methods A PRISMA search was performed for cost-effectiveness within breast surgery. Articles were scored with CHEERS criteria on a 0-24 scale and qualitative data were collected. Subgroup analysis was performed comparing pre-CHEERS (published in 2013 or earlier) and post-CHEERS (published in 2014 or later) cohorts. Chi-squared analysis was performed to compare where studies lost points between cohorts. Results Of 2279 articles screened, 46 articles were included. The average CHEERS score was 18.18. Points were most often lost for characterizing heterogeneity, followed by discount rate, incremental costs and outcomes, and abstract. Quality-adjusted life year was the most commonly used health outcome, with visual model or analog scales as the most commonly used measure of effectiveness obtained primarily from surgeons or physicians. Most articles characterized uncertainty by deterministic sensitivity analysis, followed by both deterministic and probabilistic, then probabilistic. Average CHEERS scores were similar between pre- and post-CHEERS cohorts (17.67 vs. 18.40, P > .05) There were several significant differences in where articles lost points between pre- and post-CHEERS cohorts. Discussion In order to standardize the reporting of results, cost-effectiveness studies in breast surgery should adhere to the current CHEERS criteria and aim to better characterize heterogeneity in their analyses.