Azar Farbod Ebadifard, Azami-Aghdash Saber, Pournaghi-Azar Fatemeh, Mazdaki Alireza, Rezapour Aziz, Ebrahimi Parvin, Yousefzadeh Negar
Health Promotion Research Center, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Road Traffic Injury Research Center, Tabriz University of Medical Sciences, Tabriz, Iran.
BMC Health Serv Res. 2017 Jun 19;17(1):413. doi: 10.1186/s12913-017-2374-1.
BACKGROUND: Due to extensive literature in the field of lung cancer and their heterogeneous results, the aim of this study was to systematically review of systematic reviews studies which reviewed the cost-effectiveness of various lung cancer screening and treatment methods. METHODS: In this systematic review of systematic reviews study, required data were collected searching the following key words which selected from Mesh: "lung cancer", "lung oncology", "lung Carcinoma", "lung neoplasm", "lung tumors", "cost- effectiveness", "systematic review" and "Meta-analysis". The following databases were searched: PubMed, Cochrane Library electronic databases, Google Scholar, and Scopus. Two reviewers (RA and A-AS) evaluated the articles according to the checklist of "assessment of multiple systematic reviews" (AMSTAR) tool. RESULTS: Overall, information of 110 papers was discussed in eight systematic reviews. Authors focused on cost-effectiveness of lung cancer treatments in five systematic reviews. Targeted therapy options (bevacizumab, Erlotinib and Crizotinib) show an acceptable cost-effectiveness. Results of three studies failed to show cost-effectiveness of screening methods. None of the studies had used the meta-analysis method. The Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES) tool and Drummond checklist were mostly used in assessing the quality of articles. Most perspective was related to the Payer (64 times) and the lowest was related to Social (11times). Most cases referred to Incremental analysis (82%) and also the lowest point of referral was related to Discounting (in 49% of the cases). The average quality score of included studies was calculated 9.2% from 11. CONCLUSIONS: Targeted therapy can be an option for the treatment of lung cancer. Evaluation of the cost-effectiveness of computerized tomographic colonography (CTC) in lung cancer screening is recommended. The perspective of the community should be more taken into consideration in studies of cost-effectiveness. Paying more attention to the topic of Discounting will be necessary in the studies.
背景：由于肺癌领域的文献广泛且结果各异，本研究旨在对系统评价研究进行系统回顾，这些研究回顾了各种肺癌筛查和治疗方法的成本效益。 方法：在这项对系统评价的系统回顾研究中，通过搜索从医学主题词表（Mesh）中选取的以下关键词收集所需数据：“肺癌”、“肺部肿瘤学”、“肺癌”、“肺肿瘤”、“肺肿瘤”、“成本效益”、“系统评价”和“荟萃分析”。搜索了以下数据库：PubMed、Cochrane图书馆电子数据库、谷歌学术和Scopus。两名评审员（RA和A-AS）根据“多项系统评价评估”（AMSTAR）工具的清单对文章进行评估。 结果：总体而言，八项系统评价中讨论了110篇论文的信息。五项系统评价中作者关注肺癌治疗的成本效益。靶向治疗方案（贝伐单抗、厄洛替尼和克唑替尼）显示出可接受的成本效益。三项研究的结果未能显示筛查方法的成本效益。没有一项研究使用荟萃分析方法。健康经济研究质量（QHES）工具和德拉蒙德清单大多用于评估文章质量。大多数观点与支付方相关（64次），与社会相关的最少（11次）。大多数案例涉及增量分析（82%），转诊最少的点与贴现相关（49%的案例）。纳入研究的平均质量得分从11分中计算得出为9.2%。 结论：靶向治疗可以作为肺癌治疗的一种选择。建议评估计算机断层结肠成像（CTC）在肺癌筛查中的成本效益。在成本效益研究中应更多地考虑社区的观点。在研究中需要更多地关注贴现主题。
BMC Health Serv Res. 2017-6-19
Asia Pac J Oncol Nurs. 2018
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022-2-1
Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2016-8
Zhonghua Liu Xing Bing Xue Za Zhi. 2019-2-10
Zhonghua Yu Fang Yi Xue Za Zhi. 2020-3-6
Health Technol Assess. 2021-6
J Clin Med. 2024-7-18
Malays Fam Physician. 2023-10-27
Front Public Health. 2023
Health Sci Rep. 2022-10-29
J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. 2022-7-5
J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2016-4
Zhonghua Liu Xing Bing Xue Za Zhi. 2016-2
Future Oncol. 2016-4
Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2016-8
J Occup Rehabil. 2017-6
Eur J Cancer Care (Engl). 2017-3
Eur Respir J. 2016-2
Transl Lung Cancer Res. 2015-12
Zotero 插件
