Teaching, Research & Innovation Unit, Parc Sanitari Sant Joan de Déu-Institut de Recerca Sant Joan de Déu, 08830 Barcelona, Spain.
Primary Care Prevention and Health Promotion Network (redIAPP), 08007 Barcelona, Spain.
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020 Feb 12;17(4):1171. doi: 10.3390/ijerph17041171.
Economic evaluations using Real World Data (RWD) has been increasing in the very recent years, however, this source of information has several advantages and limitations. The aim of this review was to assess the quality of full economic evaluations (EE) developed using RWD. A systematic review was carried out through articles from the following databases: PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. Included were studies that employed RWD for both costs and effectiveness. Methodological quality of the studies was assessed using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) checklist. Of the 14,011 studies identified, 93 were included. Roughly half of the studies were carried out in a hospital setting. The most frequently assessed illnesses were neoplasms while the most evaluated interventions were pharmacological. The main source of costs and effects of RWD were information systems. The most frequent clinical outcome was survival. Some 47% of studies met at least 80% of CHEERS criteria. Studies were conducted with samples of 100-1000 patients or more, were randomized, and those that reported bias controls were those that fulfilled most CHEERS criteria. In conclusion, fewer than half the studies met 80% of the CHEERS checklist criteria.
近年来,利用真实世界数据(RWD)进行经济评估的情况有所增加,但这种信息来源有其优势和局限性。本综述旨在评估使用 RWD 进行的全成本效益评估(EE)的质量。通过从以下数据库中的文章进行系统综述:PubMed、Embase、Web of Science 和中心审查与传播。纳入的研究使用 RWD 同时评估成本和效果。使用统一健康经济评估报告标准(CHEERS)清单评估研究的方法学质量。在确定的 14011 项研究中,纳入了 93 项。大约一半的研究在医院环境中进行。评估的最常见疾病是肿瘤,而评估的最常见干预措施是药物治疗。RWD 的成本和效果的主要来源是信息系统。最常见的临床结果是生存。约有 47%的研究至少符合 CHEERS 标准的 80%。研究采用了 100-1000 名或更多患者的样本,进行了随机分组,并且那些报告了偏倚控制的研究更符合 CHEERS 标准。总之,不到一半的研究符合 CHEERS 清单标准的 80%。