Our latest research, all in one place. Browse our collection of journal articles, reports and conference proceedings to see how we’re contributing to HEOR research. Remember to:
Chronic wounds have a substantial economic impact on the NHS, with leg ulcers alone costing almost £4.6 billion per year. Approximately 2% of the adult population is affected by lower limb ulceration, and this is rising as a result of demographics, including longer life expectancy and the increasing prevalence of obesity and diabetes. Even after healing, the recurrence rate of leg ulcers is high, meaning that the cost and health impact is a long-term problem. There appears to be a large variation in treatment methods, possibly as a result of a lack of evidence-based practices. The variation in practice means that, in many areas, healing times are far from optimal, leading to increased costs and health burden for the patient. This article outlines a number of previously published recommendations, including the leg ulcer treatment pathway. The article also provides an overview of the considerations when undertaking an economic evaluation of pathways, and provides recommendations about the type of data that should be routinely collected in clinical trials.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Filtering the deluge of new research to facilitate evidence synthesis has proven to be unmanageable using current paradigms of search and retrieval. Crowdsourcing, a way of harnessing the collective effort of a "crowd" of people, has the potential to support evidence synthesis by addressing this information overload created by the exponential growth in primary research outputs. Cochrane Crowd, Cochrane's citizen science platform, offers a range of tasks aimed at identifying studies related to health care. Accompanying each task are brief, interactive training modules, and agreement algorithms that help ensure accurate collective decision-making.The aims of the study were to evaluate the performance of Cochrane Crowd in terms of its accuracy, capacity, and autonomy and to examine contributor engagement across three tasks aimed at identifying randomized trials.
STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Crowd accuracy was evaluated by measuring the sensitivity and specificity of crowd screening decisions on a sample of titles and abstracts, compared with "quasi gold-standard" decisions about the same records using the conventional methods of dual screening. Crowd capacity, in the form of output volume, was evaluated by measuring the number of records processed by the crowd, compared with baseline. Crowd autonomy, the capability of the crowd to produce accurate collectively derived decisions without the need for expert resolution, was measured by the proportion of records that needed resolving by an expert.
RESULTS: The Cochrane Crowd community currently has 18,897 contributors from 163 countries. Collectively, the Crowd has processed 1,021,227 records, helping to identify 178,437 reports of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for Cochrane's Central Register of Controlled Trials. The sensitivity for each task was 99.1% for the RCT identification task (RCT ID), 99.7% for the RCT identification task of trials from ClinicalTrials.gov (CT ID), and 97.7% for the identification of RCTs from the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP ID). The specificity for each task was 99% for RCT ID, 98.6% for CT ID, and 99.1% for CT ICTRP ID. The capacity of the combined Crowd and machine learning workflow has increased fivefold in 6 years, compared with baseline. The proportion of records requiring expert resolution across the tasks ranged from 16.6% to 19.7%.
CONCLUSION: Cochrane Crowd is sufficiently accurate and scalable to keep pace with the current rate of publication (and registration) of new primary studies. It has also proved to be a popular, efficient, and accurate way for a large number of people to play an important voluntary role in health evidence production. Cochrane Crowd is now an established part of Cochrane's effort to manage the deluge of primary research being produced.
BACKGROUND: Fracture nonunions impact on morbidity and health care costs and are associated with substantial pain, reduced mobility, prolonged morbidity, and a lower quality of life. CMF OrthoLogic 1000 (OL1000) is a bone growth stimulator used to promote fracture healing potentially reducing the need for surgical intervention. A cost analysis comparing CMF OL1000 versus surgical care for patients with nonunion tibial fractures was conducted.
METHODS: A Markov model was developed to compare the difference in costs between CMF OL1000 versus surgical care within the English National Health Service over a 2-year time horizon. The effectiveness of CMF OL1000 was based on recently published registry data. Cost data were derived from published sources and national cost databases. Sensitivity and scenario analyses were conducted.
RESULTS: The use of CMF OL1000 is estimated to lead to cost-savings of £1,104 per patient, a reduction in average healing time of 2.1 months and a relative risk of infection of 0.19 compared to immediate surgical intervention (standard of care). The results of the model are robust to most changes in input parameters and scenarios considered.
CONCLUSIONS: This early analysis shows cost-savings for CMF OL1000 compared with surgical intervention for individuals with nonunion tibial fractures.
The use of biologics for autoimmune conditions has increased considerably since they were first introduced. Matthew Taylor discusses this group of medications for the treatment of psoriasis, weighing up costs with quality of life gains for patients and highlighting areas of research that require further investigation.
The methods and results of systematic reviews should be reported in sufficient detail to allow users to assess the trustworthiness and applicability of the review findings. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement was developed to facilitate transparent and complete reporting of systematic reviews and has been updated (to PRISMA 2020) to reflect recent advances in systematic review methodology and terminology. Here, we present the explanation and elaboration paper for PRISMA 2020, where we explain why reporting of each item is recommended, present bullet points that detail the reporting recommendations, and present examples from published reviews. We hope that changes to the content and structure of PRISMA 2020 will facilitate uptake of the guideline and lead to more transparent, complete, and accurate reporting of systematic reviews. In order to encourage its wide dissemination this article is freely accessible on BMJ, PLOS Medicine, Journal of Clinical Epidemiology and International Journal of Surgery journal websites.
BACKGROUND: People with respiratory conditions are susceptible to health problems caused by exposure to indoor air pollutants. An economic framework was developed to inform a guideline developed by National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) to estimate the required level of efficacy necessary for an intervention to be cost-saving in dwellings across England.0
METHODS: An economic modelling framework was built to estimate the incremental costs pre- and post-implementation of interventions designed to reduce exposure to indoor air pollution within dwellings of varying building-related risk factors and profiles. The intervention cost was varied simultaneously with the relative reduction in symptomatic cases of each health condition to estimate the point at which an intervention may become cost-saving. Four health conditions were considered.
RESULTS: People living in dwellings with either an extreme risk profile or usable floor area <90 m2 have the greatest capacity to benefit and save National Health Service (NHS) costs from interventions at any given level of effectiveness and upfront cost. CONCLUSIONS: At any effectiveness level, the threshold for the upfront intervention cost to remain cost-saving is equivalent across the different home characteristics. The flexible model can be used to guide decision-making under a range of scenarios.
BACKGROUND: This updated systematic review assesses the effects of pharmacological interventions for drug-using offenders.
METHODS: Systematic review protocols and conventions of the Cochrane Collaboration were followed to identify eligible studies. Studies were pooled in a meta-analysis to assess the impact of pharmacological interventions on drug use and criminal activity. An economic appraisal was conducted.
RESULTS: The search strategies identified 22 studies containing 4372 participants. Meta-analyses revealed a small statistically significant mean difference favouring pharmacological interventions relative to psychological interventions in reducing drug use and criminal activity. When comparing the drugs to one another there were no significant differences between those included (methadone versus buprenorphine, naltrexone and cyclazocine).
CONCLUSION: Overall, the findings of this review suggest that methadone and naltrexone may have some impact on reducing drug use and reincarceration. Individual pharmacological drugs had differing (generally non-significant) effects. One study identified serious adverse events. Three studies reported cost and consequences information sufficient to conduct a full economic analysis but this was not comprehensive enough to be able to make judgements across all treatment options. Full economic analyses should be encouraged. The study findings were limited mainly to male adult offenders.
