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:
OBJECTIVE: This article reviews the available evidence and guidance on methods to identify reports of quasi-experimental (QE) studies to inform systematic reviews of health care, public health, international development, education, crime and justice, and social welfare.
STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Research, guidance, and examples of search strategies were identified by searching a range of databases, key guidance documents, selected reviews, conference proceedings, and personal communication. Current practice and research evidence were summarized.
RESULTS: Four thousand nine hundred twenty-four records were retrieved by database searches, and additional documents were obtained by other searches. QE studies are challenging to identify efficiently because they have no standardized nomenclature and may be indexed in various ways. Reliable search filters are not available. There is a lack of specific resources devoted to collecting QE studies and little evidence on where best to search.
CONCLUSION: Searches to identify QE studies should search a range of resources and, until indexing improves, use strategies that focus on the topic rather than the study design. Better definitions, better indexing in databases, prospective registers, and reporting guidance are required to improve the retrieval of QE studies and promote systematic reviews of what works based on the evidence from such studies.
OBJECTIVES: This study was designed to assess the sensitivity of three Ovid MEDLINE search filters developed to identify studies reporting health state utility values (HSUVs), to improve the performance of the best performing filter, and to validate resulting search filters.
METHODS: Three quasi-gold standard sets (QGS1, QGS2, QGS3) of relevant studies were harvested from reviews of studies reporting HSUVs. The performance of three initial filters was assessed by measuring their relative recall of studies in QGS1. The best performing filter was then developed further using QGS2. This resulted in three final search filters (FSF1, FSF2, and FSF3), which were validated using QGS3.
RESULTS: FSF1 (sensitivity maximizing) retrieved 132/139 records (sensitivity: 95 percent) in the QGS3 validation set. FSF1 had a number needed to read (NNR) of 842. FSF2 (balancing sensitivity and precision) retrieved 128/139 records (sensitivity: 92 percent) with a NNR of 502. FSF3 (precision maximizing) retrieved 123/139 records (sensitivity: 88 percent) with a NNR of 383.
CONCLUSIONS: We have developed and validated a search filter (FSF1) to identify studies reporting HSUVs with high sensitivity (95 percent) and two other search filters (FSF2 and FSF3) with reasonably high sensitivity (92 percent and 88 percent) but greater precision, resulting in a lower NNR. These seem to be the first validated filters available for HSUVs. The availability of filters with a range of sensitivity and precision options enables researchers to choose the filter which is most appropriate to the resources available for their specific research.
No abstract available.
No abstract available
BACKGROUND: Asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are widespread chronic conditions with medication frequently delivered by inhalers. These can be challenging to use correctly, but the scale of misuse and the specific aspects of failure are unclear.
METHODS: We used systematic review methods to search 9 databases in May 2015 to identify and review studies that assessed adults (18 years or older) with asthma or COPD using inhalers of various types including pressurised metered dose inhalers (pMDIs), dry powder inhalers and the Respimat inhaler. Studies must have reported the scale of inhaler misuse, variation by type of inhaler or which steps patients had difficulty completing accurately.
RESULTS: The types of inhalers, inhaler interventions and definitions of failure and misuse varied widely in the 38 studies identified. It was not possible to draw conclusions on the differential failure rates between different types of inhalers or any patient characteristics. Of the studies reporting failure or misuse rates, the majority ranged between 0 and 20%. Studies were inconsistent regarding the number of inhaler steps collected, reported and labelled as critical.
CONCLUSIONS: There is evidence for all identified inhalers that some people may be using them incorrectly, but it is unclear which inhalers have higher rates of misuse or which steps within the inhaler technique are most difficult for patients. The optimal techniques for using inhalers are not standardised. Researchers undertaking future inhaler studies are respectfully directed to our recommendations for future research.
The Spectra Optia® automated apheresis system, indicated for red blood cell exchange in people with sickle cell disease, underwent evaluation by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, which uses its Medical Technologies Advisory Committee to make recommendations. The company (Terumo Medical Corporation) produced a submission making a case for adoption of its technology, which was critiqued by the Newcastle and York external assessment centre. Thirty retrospective observational studies were identified in their clinical submission. The external assessment centre considered these were of low methodological and reporting quality. Most were single-armed studies, with only six studies providing comparative data. The available data showed that, compared with manual red blood cell exchange, Spectra Optia reduces the frequency of exchange procedures as well as their duration, but increases the requirement for donor blood. However, other clinical and patient benefits were equivocal because of an absence of robust clinical evidence. The company provided a de novo model to support the economic proposition of the technology, and reported that in most scenarios Spectra Optia was cost saving, primarily through reduced requirement of chelation therapy to manage iron overload. The external assessment centre considered that although the cost-saving potential of Spectra Optia was plausible, the model and its clinical inputs were not sufficiently robust to demonstrate this. However, taking the evidence together with expert and patient advice, the Medical Technologies Advisory Committee considered Spectra Optia was likely to save costs, provide important patient benefits, and reduce inequality, and gave the technology a positive recommendation in Medical Technology Guidance 28.
The Spectra Optia® automated apheresis system, indicated for red blood cell exchange in people with sickle cell disease, underwent evaluation by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, which uses its Medical Technologies Advisory Committee to make recommendations. The company (Terumo Medical Corporation) produced a submission making a case for adoption of its technology, which was critiqued by the Newcastle and York external assessment centre. Thirty retrospective observational studies were identified in their clinical submission. The external assessment centre considered these were of low methodological and reporting quality. Most were single-armed studies, with only six studies providing comparative data. The available data showed that, compared with manual red blood cell exchange, Spectra Optia reduces the frequency of exchange procedures as well as their duration, but increases the requirement for donor blood. However, other clinical and patient benefits were equivocal because of an absence of robust clinical evidence. The company provided a de novo model to support the economic proposition of the technology, and reported that in most scenarios Spectra Optia was cost saving, primarily through reduced requirement of chelation therapy to manage iron overload. The external assessment centre considered that although the cost-saving potential of Spectra Optia was plausible, the model and its clinical inputs were not sufficiently robust to demonstrate this. However, taking the evidence together with expert and patient advice, the Medical Technologies Advisory Committee considered Spectra Optia was likely to save costs, provide important patient benefits, and reduce inequality, and gave the technology a positive recommendation in Medical Technology Guidance 28.
