Orthopedic Surgery, Zuyderland Medical Centre Heerlen, Heerlen, The Netherlands
Caphri School of Public Health and Primary Care, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
BMJ Open. 2023 Mar 23;13(3):e067871. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2022-067871.
The present study is a systematic review conducted as part of a methodological approach to develop evidence-based recommendations for economic evaluations in spine surgery. The aim of this systematic review is to evaluate the methodology and quality of currently available clinical cost-effectiveness studies in spine surgery.
Systematic literature review.
PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, EconLit and The National Institute for Health Research Economic Evaluation Database were searched through 8 December 2022.
Studies were included if they met all of the following eligibility criteria: (1) spine surgery, (2) the study cost-effectiveness and (3) clinical study. Model-based studies were excluded.
The following data items were extracted and evaluated: pathology, number of participants, intervention(s), year, country, study design, time horizon, comparator(s), utility measurement, effectivity measurement, costs measured, perspective, main result and study quality.
130 economic evaluations were included. Seventy-four of these studies were retrospective studies. The majority of the studies had a time horizon shorter than 2 years. Utility measures varied between the EuroQol 5 dimensions and variations of the Short-Form Health Survey. Effect measures varied widely between Visual Analogue Scale for pain, Neck Disability Index, Oswestry Disability Index, reoperation rates and adverse events. All studies included direct costs from a healthcare perspective. Indirect costs were included in 47 studies. Total Consensus Health Economic Criteria scores ranged from 2 to 18, with a mean score of 12.0 over all 130 studies.
The comparability of economic evaluations in spine surgery is extremely low due to different study designs, follow-up duration and outcome measurements such as utility, effectiveness and costs. This illustrates the need for uniformity in conducting and reporting economic evaluations in spine surgery.
本研究是作为制定脊柱外科循证经济评估推荐意见的方法学研究的一部分进行的系统评价。本系统评价的目的是评估目前脊柱外科临床成本效益研究的方法学和质量。
系统文献回顾。
通过 2022 年 12 月 8 日检索 PubMed、Web of Science、Embase、Cochrane、Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature、EconLit 和 The National Institute for Health Research Economic Evaluation Database。
如果研究符合以下所有纳入标准,则纳入研究:(1)脊柱外科;(2)研究成本效益;(3)临床研究。排除基于模型的研究。
提取并评估以下数据项目:病变、参与者数量、干预措施、年份、国家、研究设计、时间范围、对照物、效用测量、有效性测量、测量的成本、视角、主要结果和研究质量。
纳入 130 项经济评估。其中 74 项为回顾性研究。大多数研究的时间范围短于 2 年。效用测量值在欧洲五维健康量表和简化健康调查量表之间变化。效果测量值在疼痛视觉模拟评分、颈部残疾指数、Oswestry 残疾指数、再手术率和不良事件之间差异很大。所有研究均从医疗保健角度纳入直接成本。47 项研究纳入间接成本。总共识健康经济标准评分范围为 2 至 18 分,130 项研究的平均得分为 12.0。
由于研究设计、随访时间以及效用、效果和成本等结果测量的不同,脊柱外科经济评估的可比性极低。这说明了在脊柱外科进行经济评估时需要统一的方法。