van Giessen Anoukh, Peters Jaime, Wilcher Britni, Hyde Chris, Moons Carl, de Wit Ardine, Koffijberg Erik
Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Evidence Synthesis and Modelling for Health Improvement (ESMI), University of Exeter, Exeter, UK.
Value Health. 2017 Apr;20(4):718-726. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2017.01.001. Epub 2017 Mar 11.
Although health economic evaluations (HEEs) are increasingly common for therapeutic interventions, they appear to be rare for the use of risk prediction models (PMs).
To evaluate the current state of HEEs of PMs by performing a comprehensive systematic review.
Four databases were searched for HEEs of PM-based strategies. Two reviewers independently selected eligible articles. A checklist was compiled to score items focusing on general characteristics of HEEs of PMs, model characteristics and quality of HEEs, evidence on PMs typically used in the HEEs, and the specific challenges in performing HEEs of PMs.
After screening 791 abstracts, 171 full texts, and reference checking, 40 eligible HEEs evaluating 60 PMs were identified. In these HEEs, PM strategies were compared with current practice (n = 32; 80%), to other stratification methods for patient management (n = 19; 48%), to an extended PM (n = 9; 23%), or to alternative PMs (n = 5; 13%). The PMs guided decisions on treatment (n = 42; 70%), further testing (n = 18; 30%), or treatment prioritization (n = 4; 7%). For 36 (60%) PMs, only a single decision threshold was evaluated. Costs of risk prediction were ignored for 28 (46%) PMs. Uncertainty in outcomes was assessed using probabilistic sensitivity analyses in 22 (55%) HEEs.
Despite the huge number of PMs in the medical literature, HEE of PMs remains rare. In addition, we observed great variety in their quality and methodology, which may complicate interpretation of HEE results and implementation of PMs in practice. Guidance on HEE of PMs could encourage and standardize their application and enhance methodological quality, thereby improving adequate use of PM strategies.
尽管卫生经济评估(HEEs)在治疗性干预措施中越来越普遍,但在风险预测模型(PMs)的应用方面似乎很少见。
通过进行全面的系统评价来评估PMs的卫生经济评估现状。
检索四个数据库以查找基于PMs策略的卫生经济评估。两名评审员独立选择符合条件的文章。编制了一份清单,对关注PMs卫生经济评估的一般特征、模型特征和卫生经济评估质量、卫生经济评估中通常使用的PMs证据以及进行PMs卫生经济评估的具体挑战等项目进行评分。
在筛选了791篇摘要、171篇全文并进行参考文献核对后,确定了40项符合条件的卫生经济评估,评估了60个PMs。在这些卫生经济评估中,将PMs策略与当前实践(n = 32;80%)、患者管理的其他分层方法(n = 19;48%)、扩展的PMs(n = 9;23%)或替代的PMs(n = 5;13%)进行了比较。这些PMs指导了治疗决策(n = 42;70%)、进一步检测(n = 18;30%)或治疗优先级确定(n = 4;7%)。对于36个(60%)PMs,仅评估了单个决策阈值。28个(46%)PMs忽略了风险预测成本。22个(55%)卫生经济评估使用概率敏感性分析评估了结果的不确定性。
尽管医学文献中有大量的PMs,但PMs的卫生经济评估仍然很少见。此外,我们观察到它们在质量和方法上存在很大差异,这可能会使卫生经济评估结果的解释和PMs在实践中的应用复杂化。PMs卫生经济评估指南可以鼓励并规范其应用,提高方法学质量,从而改善PMs策略的合理使用。