University of Sheffield, SCHARR, 30 Regent Street, Sheffield, S1 4DA, UK.
Lumanity Limited, Sheffield, UK.
Pharmacoeconomics. 2024 Nov;42(11):1255-1266. doi: 10.1007/s40273-024-01414-7. Epub 2024 Aug 6.
The objective of this study is to compare different information retrieval methods that can be used to identify utility inputs for health economic models.
The usual practice of using systematic review methods was compared with two alternatives (iterative searching and rapid review), using a health technology assessment (HTA) case study in ulcerative colitis (UC). We analysed whether there were differences in the utility values identified when using the alternative search methods. Success was evaluated in terms of time, burden and relevance of identified information. The identified utility values were tested in an executable health economic model developed for UC, and the model results were compared.
The usual practice of using systematic review search approaches identified the most publications but was also the least precise method and took longest to complete. The inclusion of data from the different search methods in the model did not lead to different conclusions across search methods.
In this case study, usual practice was less efficient and resulted in the same health economic model conclusions as the alternative search methods. Further case studies are required to examine whether this conclusion might be generalisable.
本研究旨在比较可用于识别卫生经济模型效用输入的不同信息检索方法。
使用系统评价方法的常规实践与两种替代方法（迭代搜索和快速审查）进行了比较，使用溃疡性结肠炎（UC）的卫生技术评估（HTA）案例研究。我们分析了当使用替代搜索方法时，在识别效用值方面是否存在差异。成功与否取决于所确定信息的时间、负担和相关性。在为 UC 开发的可执行卫生经济模型中测试了所确定的效用值，并比较了模型结果。
使用系统评价搜索方法的常规实践虽然识别出了最多的出版物，但也是最不精确的方法，且完成时间最长。将不同搜索方法的数据纳入模型并没有导致不同的搜索方法之间的结论不同。
在本案例研究中，常规实践效率较低，与替代搜索方法得出的卫生经济模型结论相同。需要进一步的案例研究来检验这一结论是否具有普遍性。
