Extending the hierarchical decision matrix to incorporate a dominance ranking score for economic systematic reviews

被引:5
作者
Lo, Kenneth [1 ,2 ]
Stephenson, Matthew [1 ]
Lockwood, Craig [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Adelaide, Joanna Briggs Inst, Fac Hlth & Med Sci, Adelaide, SA, Australia
[2] Flinders Univ S Australia, Flinders Hlth & Med Res Inst, Coll Med & Publ Hlth, Adelaide, SA, Australia
关键词
Cost-benefit analysis; Costs and cost analysis; Medical Economics; Pharmaceutical Economics; Evidence-Based Medicine; STROKE; THERAPY; COST;
D O I
10.1016/j.mex.2020.101047
中图分类号
O [数理科学和化学]; P [天文学、地球科学]; Q [生物科学]; N [自然科学总论];
学科分类号
07 ; 0710 ; 09 ;
摘要
As the base of clinical evidence grows, it is increasingly common to conduct economic evaluations in addition to clinical evaluations of effectiveness in order to inform health policies. For economic systematic reviews there is currently no agreed-upon quantitative method to obtain a pooled economic effect size. With no suitable quantitative method available, the hierarchical decision matrix stands out as a tool that enables a visual summary of different types of economic studies, but there are limitations with the hierarchical decision matrix. We extended the hierarchical decision matrix with a weighted scoring system (termed dominance ranking score) to allow for useful information of a study design to be incorporated. The scoring system of the dominance ranking score incorporates weighting factors that are based on sample size and effect size of a study. The dominance ranking score enables a more differentiating analysis of dominance levels. For systematic reviews that include partial economic studies, both the hierarchical decision matrix and the dominance ranking score assist to indicate the level of economic potential for a particular intervention, which facilitates the conduct of subsequent full economic studies. (C) 2020 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V.
引用
收藏
页数:11
相关论文
共 21 条
  • [1] SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS OF ECONOMIC EVALUATIONS: UTILITY OR FUTILITY?
    Anderson, Rob
    [J]. HEALTH ECONOMICS, 2010, 19 (03) : 350 - 364
  • [2] [Anonymous], 2011, COCHRANE HDB SYSTEMA
  • [3] THE CE PLANE - A GRAPHIC REPRESENTATION OF COST-EFFECTIVENESS
    BLACK, WC
    [J]. MEDICAL DECISION MAKING, 1990, 10 (03) : 212 - 214
  • [4] A basic introduction to fixed-effect and random-effects models for meta-analysis
    Borenstein, Michael
    Hedges, Larry V.
    Higgins, Julian P. T.
    Rothstein, Hannah R.
    [J]. RESEARCH SYNTHESIS METHODS, 2010, 1 (02) : 97 - 111
  • [5] Technology-assisted stroke rehabilitation in Mexico: a pilot randomized trial comparing traditional therapy to circuit training in a Robot/technology-assisted therapy gym
    Bustamante Valles, Karla
    Montes, Sandra
    de Jesus Madrigal, Maria
    Burciaga, Adan
    Elena Martinez, Maria
    Johnson, Michelle J.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF NEUROENGINEERING AND REHABILITATION, 2016, 13
  • [6] Chandler J., 2022, Cochrane Handbook for systematic reviews of interventions, DOI DOI 10.1002/9781119536604
  • [7] Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test
    Egger, M
    Smith, GD
    Schneider, M
    Minder, C
    [J]. BMJ-BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 1997, 315 (7109): : 629 - 634
  • [8] Achieving Integration in Mixed Methods Designs-Principles and Practices
    Fetters, Michael D.
    Curry, Leslie A.
    Creswell, John W.
    [J]. HEALTH SERVICES RESEARCH, 2013, 48 (06) : 2134 - 2156
  • [9] Meta-integration for synthesizing data in a systematic mixed studies review: insights from research on autism spectrum disorder
    Frantzen, Kirsten Krabek
    Fetters, Michael D.
    [J]. QUALITY & QUANTITY, 2016, 50 (05) : 2251 - 2277
  • [10] Gomersall J., 2014, JOANN BRIGGS I REV M