Biblioteca Digital de VanguardiaQuality in systematic reviews of economic evaluations of health technologies.
The decision making in the field of health both from a clinical and administrative point of view requires, among other aspects, to be based both on the best research evidence of health technologies and on the best use of the scarce economic resources with which it is usually had. In the clinical set...
| Autores principales: | , , |
|---|---|
| Formato: | Revistas |
| Lenguaje: | Español |
| Publicado: |
Universidad de Cartagena
2019
|
| Acceso en línea: | https://revistas.unicartagena.edu.co/index.php/panoramaeconomico/article/view/2583 |
| _version_ | 1782340327299874816 |
|---|---|
| author | Castañeda Guerrero, Carolina De la Hoz Restrepo, Fernando Alvis Guzmán, Nelson |
| author_facet | Castañeda Guerrero, Carolina De la Hoz Restrepo, Fernando Alvis Guzmán, Nelson |
| author_sort | Castañeda Guerrero, Carolina |
| collection | Revista |
| description | The decision making in the field of health both from a clinical and administrative point of view requires, among other aspects, to be based both on the best research evidence of health technologies and on the best use of the scarce economic resources with which it is usually had. In the clinical setting, systematic reviews of controlled and randomized clinical trials provide valuable information by summarizing the best evidence. On the other hand, economic evaluations of health technologies are useful in providing comparative information between the costs of said technology, per unit of outcome of the disease in terms usually of effectiveness or utility value. Conducting systematic reviews of economic evaluations of health technologies could in principle be considered a very good tool for decision making, however, it is important to consider that economic evaluations may present methodological weaknesses that would limit their quality. Systematic reviews of clinical trials have clear methodologies to perform them, including the risk assessment of bias and quality of both the included studies and the same review. In the case of economic evaluations, there is still heterogeneity in the methodology and lack of standardization in the way of evaluating its quality, which affects the development of systematic reviews of economic evaluations. However, this review identifies tools that can be used to evaluate quality and risk of bias in economic evaluations, as well as the same reviews. |
| format | Revistas |
| id | oai:revistas.unicartagena.edu.co:article-2583 |
| institution | Revista Panorama Económico |
| language | Español |
| publishDate | 2019 |
| publisher | Universidad de Cartagena |
| record_format | ojs |
| spelling | oai:revistas.unicartagena.edu.co:article-25832021-10-25T17:37:03Z Quality in systematic reviews of economic evaluations of health technologies. Calidad en revisiones sistemáticas de evaluaciones económicas de tecnologías en salud. Qualité dans les revues systématiques des évaluations économiques des technologies de la santé. Castañeda Guerrero, Carolina De la Hoz Restrepo, Fernando Alvis Guzmán, Nelson Health technologies Systematic review Economic evaluation Quality Quality assessment Tecnologías sanitarias Tecnologías en salud Revisiones sistemáticas Evaluaciones económicas Calidad Evaluación calidad Technologies de la santé Revue systématique Évaluation économique Qualité Évaluation qualité The decision making in the field of health both from a clinical and administrative point of view requires, among other aspects, to be based both on the best research evidence of health technologies and on the best use of the scarce economic resources with which it is usually had. In the clinical setting, systematic reviews of controlled and randomized clinical trials provide valuable information by summarizing the best evidence. On the other hand, economic evaluations of health technologies are useful in providing comparative information between the costs of said technology, per unit of outcome of the disease in terms usually of effectiveness or utility value. Conducting systematic reviews of economic evaluations of health technologies could in principle be considered a very good tool for decision making, however, it is important to consider that economic evaluations may present methodological weaknesses that would limit their quality. Systematic reviews of clinical trials have clear methodologies to perform them, including the risk assessment of bias and quality of both the included studies and the same review. In the case of economic evaluations, there is still heterogeneity in the methodology and lack of standardization in the way of evaluating its quality, which affects the development of systematic reviews of economic evaluations. However, this review identifies tools that can be used to evaluate quality and risk of bias in economic evaluations, as well as the same reviews. La toma de decisiones en salud tanto desde el punto de vista clínico como administrativo, requiere entre otros aspectos, fundamentarse tanto en la mejor evidencia producto de investigación de las tecnologías sanitarias como en el mejor uso de los escasos recursos económicos con los que usualmente se cuenta. En el ámbito clínico, las revisiones sistemáticas de ensayos clínicos controlados y aleatorizados, aportan información valiosa al sintetizar la mejor evidencia. Por otro lado, las evaluaciones económicas de tecnologías sanitarias son útiles al proporcionar información comparada entre los costos de dicha tecnología, por unidad de desenlace de la enfermedad en términos usualmente de efectividad o de utilidad. Realizar revisiones sistemáticas de evaluaciones económicas de tecnologías sanitarias en principio podría considerarse una muy buena herramienta para toma de decisiones, sin embargo, es importante considerar que las evaluaciones económicas pueden presentar debilidades metodológicas que limitarían su calidad. Las revisiones sistemáticas de ensayos clínicos cuentan con metodologías claras para realizarlas, incluyendo la evaluación de riesgo de sesgo y calidad tanto de los estudios incluidos, como de la misma revisión. En el caso de las evaluaciones económicas aún existe heterogeneidad en la metodología y falta de estandarización en la forma de evaluar su calidad, lo cual afecta el desarrollo de revisiones sistemáticas de evaluaciones económicas. Sin embargo, en la presente revisión se identifican herramientas que pueden servir para evaluar calidad y riesgo de sesgo de evaluaciones económicas, así como también de las mismas revisiones. La prise de décision dans le domaine de la santé, tant du point de vue clinique qu’administratif, exige, entre autres aspects, de s’appuyer sur les meilleures preuves de la recherche en technologie de la santé et sur la meilleure utilisation des rares ressources économiques avec généralement qu’ils ont. Dans le contexte clinique, les examens systématiques d’essais cliniques contrôlés et randomisés fournissent des informations précieuses en résumant les meilleures preuves. D’autre part, les évaluations économiques des technologies de la santé sont utiles pour fournir des informations comparatives entre les coûts de ladite technologie, par unité de résultat de maladie en termes d’efficacité ou de valeur d’utilité. L’examen systématique des évaluations économiques des technologies de la santé pourrait en principe être considéré comme un très bon outil de prise de décision; Cependant, il est important de garder à l’esprit que les évaluations économiques peuvent présenter des faiblesses méthodologiques qui limiteraient leur qualité. Les revues systématiques d’essais cliniques ont des méthodologies claires pour les réaliser, comprenant l’évaluation du risque de biais et de la qualité des études incluses etla même revue. Dans le cas des évaluations économiques, il existe toujours une hétérogénéité dans la méthodologie et un manque de normalisation dans la manière d’évaluer sa qualité, ce qui affecte le développement d’examens systématiques des évaluations économiques. Cependant, cet examen identifie des outils pouvant être utilisés pour évaluer la qualité et le risque de biais dans les évaluations économiques, ainsi que les mêmes examens. Universidad de Cartagena 2019-07-01 info:eu-repo/semantics/article info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion application/pdf https://revistas.unicartagena.edu.co/index.php/panoramaeconomico/article/view/2583 10.32997/2463-0470-vol.27-num.3-2019-2583 Panorama Económico Journal; Vol. 27 No. 3 (2019); 581-597 Panorama Económico; Vol. 27 Núm. 3 (2019); 581-597 Panorama Económico; v. 27 n. 3 (2019); 581-597 2463-0470 0122-8900 10.32997/2463-0470-vol.27-num.3-2019 spa https://revistas.unicartagena.edu.co/index.php/panoramaeconomico/article/view/2583/2161 /*ref*/Adarkwah, C. C., van Gils, P. F., Hiligsmann, M., & Evers, S. M. (2016). Risk of bias in model-based economic evaluations: the ECOBIAS checklist. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res, 16(4), 513-523. https://doi.org/10.1586/14737167.2015.1103185 : PMid:26588001 /*ref*/Akers J, Aguiar-Ibáñez R, Baba-Akbari A, Beynon S, Booth A, Burch J, . . . Fonseca T. (2009). Systematic Reviews of Economic EvaluationsSystematic Reviews. CRD's guidance for undertaking reviews in health care.: Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York. Retrieved from http://www.york.ac.uk/crd/SysRev/!SSL!/WebHelp/SysRev3.htm /*ref*/Anderson, R. (2010). Systematic reviews of economic evaluations: utility or futility? Health Econ, 19(3), 350-364. https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.1486 : PMid:19378354 /*ref*/Atehortua, S., Ceballos, M., Gaviria, C. F., & Mejia, A. (2013). [Quality assessment of economic evaluations in health care in Colombia: a systematic review]. Biomedica, 33(4), 615-630. https://doi.org/10.7705/biomedica.v33i4.1536 : PMid:24652216 /*ref*/Atkins, D., Best, D., Briss, P. A., Eccles, M., Falck-Ytter, Y., Flottorp, S., . . . Zaza, S. (2004). Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ, 328(7454), 1490. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.328.7454.1490 : PMid:15205295 PMCid:PMC428525 /*ref*/Augustovski, F., García Martí, S., & Pichon-Riviere, A. (2013). Estándares Consolidados de Reporte de Evaluaciones Económicas Sanitarias: Versión en Español de la Lista de Comprobación CHEERS. Value in Health Regional Issues, 2(3), 338-341. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vhri.2013.10.004 : PMid:29702767 /*ref*/Borgerson, K. (2009). Valuing evidence: bias and the evidence hierarchy of evidence-based medicine. Perspect Biol Med, 52(2), 218-233. https://doi.org/10.1353/pbm.0.0086 : PMid:19395821 /*ref*/Briggs A, C. K., Sculper M,. (2007). Decision modelling for health economic evaluation. Oxford UK: Oxford University Press. /*ref*/Brouwer, W. B., Culyer, A. J., van Exel, N. J., & Rutten, F. F. (2008). Welfarism vs. extra-welfarism. J Health Econ, 27(2), 325-338. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhealeco.2007.07.003 : PMid:18179835 /*ref*/Brunetti, M., Shemilt, I., Pregno, S., Vale, L., Oxman, A. D., Lord, J., . . . Schunemann, H. J. (2013). GRADE guidelines: 10. Considering resource use and rating the quality of economic evidence. J Clin Epidemiol, 66(2), 140-150. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2012.04.012 : PMid:22863410 /*ref*/Cochrane Website. Cochrane Collaboration. Retrieved Marzo 7, 2019, from https://www.cochrane.org/about-us /*ref*/Cooper, N., Coyle, D., Abrams, K., Mugford, M., & Sutton, A. (2005). Use of evidence in decision models: an appraisal of health technology assessments in the UK since 1997. J Health Serv Res Policy, 10(4), 245-250. https://doi.org/10.1258/135581905774414187 : PMid:16259692 /*ref*/Chaikledkaew, U., & Kittrongsiri, K. (2014). Quality assessment of health economic evaluation. J Med Assoc Thai, 97 Suppl 5, S113-118. /*ref*/Drummond, M., Barbieri, M., Cook, J., Glick, H. A., Lis, J., Malik, F., . . . Severens, J. (2009). Transferability of economic evaluations across jurisdictions: ISPOR Good Research Practices Task Force report. Value Health, 12(4), 409-418. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1524-4733.2008.00489.x : PMid:19900249 /*ref*/Drummond, M. F., & Jefferson, T. O. (1996). Guidelines for authors and peer reviewers of economic submissions to the BMJ. The BMJ Economic Evaluation Working Party. BMJ, 313(7052), 275-283. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.313.7052.275 : PMid:8704542 PMCid:PMC2351717. /*ref*/Drummond MF, S. M., Claxton K, Stoddart GL, Torrance GW (2015). Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes. Oxford - United Kingdom. /*ref*/EunetHTA. (2015). Methods for health economic evaluations - A guideline based on current practices in Europe. Retrieved marzo 23, 2019, from https://www.eunethta.eu/wpcontent/uploads/2018/03/Methods_for_health_economic_evaluations.pdf /*ref*/Evers, S., Goossens, M., de Vet, H., van Tulder, M., & Ament, A. (2005). Criteria list for assessment of methodological quality of economic evaluations: Consensus on Health Economic Criteria. Int J Technol Assess Health Care, 21(2), 240-245. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0266462305050324 : PMid:15921065 /*ref*/García Fariñas, A., García Rodríguez, J. F., Gálvez González, A. M., & Jimenez López, G. (2016). Calidad metodológica de las evaluaciones económicas completas, publicadas en revistas médicas cubanas (1999-2014). Revista Cubana de Salud Pública, 42, 183-192. /*ref*/Gomersall, J. S., Jadotte, Y. T., Xue, Y., Lockwood, S., Riddle, D., & Preda, A. (2014). The Systematic Review of Economic Evaluation Evidence.: The Joanna Briggs Institute Reviewers' Manual 2014. /*ref*/Gomersall, J. S., Jadotte, Y. T., Xue, Y., Lockwood, S., Riddle, D., & Preda, A. (2015). Conducting systematic reviews of economic evaluations. Int J Evid Based Healthc, 13(3), 170-178. https://doi.org/10.1097/XEB.0000000000000063 : PMid:26288063 /*ref*/Gray, A. M. C., P.M.; Wolstenholme, J.L.; Wordsworth S. (2011). Applied Methods of Cost-effectiveness Analysis in Health Care. Oxford United Kingdom: Oxford University Press. /*ref*/Herner, M. (2019). Perfect Top of the Evidence Hierarchy Pyramid, Maybe Not So Perfect: lessons learned by a novice researcher engaging in a meta-analysis project. BMJ Evid Based Med. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjebm-2018-111141 : PMid:30842066 /*ref*/Higgins, J., & Green, S. (Producer). (2011). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0. Retrieved from www.cochrane-handbook.org /*ref*/Howick, J., Chalmers, L., Glasziou, P., Greenhalgh, T., Heneghan, C., Liberati, A., . . . Hodgkinson, M. (2011). The Oxford Levels of Evidence 2. Retrieved Marzo 12, 2019, from https://www.cebm.net/index.aspx?o=5653 /*ref*/Husereau, D., Drummond, M., Petrou, S., Carswell, C., Moher, D., Greenberg, D., . . . Loder, E. (2013). Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS)-- explanation and elaboration: a report of the ISPOR Health Economic Evaluation Publication Guidelines Good Reporting Practices Task Force. Value Health, 16(2), 231-250. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2013.02.002 : PMid:23538175 /*ref*/INHATA. The International Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment. Retrieved Marzo 5, 2019, from http://www.inahta.org/ /*ref*/ISPOR. (2018). Pharmacoeconomic Guidelines Around the World. Retrieved Marzo 18, 2019 from https://tools.ispor.org/peguidelines/ /*ref*/Langer, A. (2012). A framework for assessing Health Economic Evaluation (HEE) quality appraisal instruments. BMC Health Serv Res, 12, 253. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-12-253 : PMid:22894708 PMCid:PMC3507835 /*ref*/Liberati, A., Altman, D. G., Tetzlaff, J., Mulrow, C., Gotzsche, P. C., Ioannidis, J. P., . . . Moher, D. (2009). The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. Plos Med, 6(7), e1000100. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000100 : PMid:19621070 PMCid:PMC2707010 /*ref*/Luhnen, M., Prediger, B., Neugebauer, E. A. M., & Mathes, T. (2019). Systematic reviews of health economic evaluations: A structured analysis of characteristics and methods applied. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1342 : PMid:30761762 /*ref*/Manterola, C., Asenjo-Lobos, C., & Otzen, T. (2014). [Hierarchy of evidence: levels of evidence and grades of recommendation from current use]. Rev Chilena Infectol, 31(6), 705-718. https://doi.org/10.4067/S0716-10182014000600011 : PMid:25679928 /*ref*/Mathes, T., Walgenbach, M., Antoine, S. L., Pieper, D., & Eikermann, M. (2014). Methods for systematic reviews of health economic evaluations: a systematic review, comparison, and synthesis of method literature. Med Decis Making, 34(7), 826-840. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X14526470 : PMid:24713694 /*ref*/Murad, M. H., Asi, N., Alsawas, M., & Alahdab, F. (2016). New evidence pyramid. 21(4), 125-127. https://doi.org/10.1136/ebmed-2016-110401 : PMid:27339128 PMCid:PMC4975798 /*ref*/Ng, Y. K. (2004). Welfare Economics: Towards a More complete Analysis. New York - USA: Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781403944061 /*ref*/PAHO, T. V. (Producer). (2017, Marzo 20 de 2019). Webinar Transferibilidad de evaluaciones económicas. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oE1N35d5mEw /*ref*/Philips, Z., Ginnelly, L., Sculpher, M., Claxton, K., Golder, S., Riemsma, R., . . . Glanville, J. (2004). Review of guidelines for good practice in decision-analytic modelling in health technology assessment. Health Technol Assess, 8(36), iii-iv, ix-xi, 1-158. https://doi.org/10.3310/hta8360 : PMid:15361314 /*ref*/Pichon-Riviere, A., Augustovski, F., Garcia Marti, S., Sullivan, S. D., & Drummond, M. (2012). Transferability of health technology assessment reports in Latin America: an exploratory survey of researchers and decision makers. Int J Technol Assess Health Care, 28(2), 180-186. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0266462312000074 : PMid:22559762 /*ref*/Pieper, D., Koensgen, N., Breuing, J., Ge, L., & Wegewitz, U. (2018). How is AMSTAR applied by authors - a call for better reporting. BMC Med Res Methodol, 18(1), 56. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-018-0520-z : PMid:29914386 PMCid:PMC6006845 /*ref*/Pollock, M., Fernandes, R. M., Becker, L. A., Featherstone, R., & Hartling, L. (2016). What guidance is available for researchers conducting overviews of reviews of healthcare interventions? A scoping review and qualitative metasummary. Syst Rev, 5(1), 190. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-016-0367-5 : PMid:27842604 PMCid:PMC5109841 /*ref*/Pollock, M., Fernandes, R. M., & Hartling, L. (2017). Evaluation of AMSTAR to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews in overviews of reviews of healthcare interventions. BMC Med Res Methodol, 17(1), 48. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-017-0325-5 : PMid:28335734 PMCid:PMC5364717 /*ref*/RedETSA (Producer). (2017, Marzo 18 2019). Transferibilidad de evaluaciones económicas. Retrieved from http://redetsa.org/wp/?p=3994 /*ref*/Rehfuess, E. A., Stratil, J. M., Scheel, I. B., Portela, A., Norris, S. L., & Baltussen, R. (2019). The WHOINTEGRATE evidence to decision framework version 1.0: integrating WHO norms and values and a complexity perspective. BMJ Glob Health, 4(Suppl 1), e000844. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjgh-2018-000844 : PMid:30775012 PMCid:PMC6350705 /*ref*/Rezapour, A., Jafari, A., Mirmasoudi, K., & Talebianpour, H. (2017). Quality Assessment of Published Articles in Iranian Journals Related to Economic Evaluation in Health Care Programs Based on Drummond's Checklist: A Narrative Review. Iran J Med Sci, 42(5), 427-436. /*ref*/Sackett, D. L., Rosenberg, W. M., Gray, J. A., Haynes, R. B., & Richardson, W. S. (1996). Evidence based medicine: what it is and what it isn't. BMJ, 312, 71-72. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.312.7023.71 : PMid:8555924 PMCid:PMC2349778 /*ref*/Shea, B. J., Grimshaw, J. M., Wells, G. A., Boers, M., Andersson, N., Hamel, C., . . . Bouter, L. M. (2007). Development of AMSTAR: a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol, 7, 10. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-7-10 : PMid:17302989 PMCid:PMC1810543 /*ref*/Shea, B. J., Hamel, C., Wells, G. A., Bouter, L. M., Kristjansson, E., Grimshaw, J., . . . Boers, M. (2009). AMSTAR is a reliable and valid measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol, 62(10), 1013-1020. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2008.10.009 : PMid:19230606 /*ref*/Shea, B. J., Reeves, B. C., Wells, G., Thuku, M., Hamel, C., Moran, J., . . . Henry, D. A. (2017). AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or nonrandomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both. BMJ, 358, j4008. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.j4008 : PMid:28935701 PMCid:PMC5833365 /*ref*/Shemilt, I., McDaid, D., Marsh, K., Henderson, C., Bertranou, E., Mallander, J., . . . Vale, L. (2013). Issues in the incorporation of economic perspectives and evidence into Cochrane reviews. Syst Rev, 2, 83. https://doi.org/10.1186/2046-4053-2-83 : PMid:24050504 PMCid:PMC3849717 /*ref*/SIGN, G. (2011). SIGN 50 A guideline developer's handbook. Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network SIGN Retrieved from https://www.sign.ac.uk/assets/sign50_2011.pdf /*ref*/Smith, V., Devane, D., Begley, C. M., & Clarke, M. (2011). Methodology in conducting a systematic review of systematic reviews of healthcare interventions. BMC Med Res Methodol, 11(1), 15. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-11-15 : PMid:21291558 PMCid:PMC3039637 /*ref*/Soto-Alvarez, J. (2012). Evaluación económica de medicamentos y tecnologías sanitarias: Principios, métodos y aplicaciones en política sanitaria. (S. A. U. Springer SBM Spain Ed.). Madrid, España. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-84-940346-6-4 : PMid:23513484 /*ref*/Tan-Torres, E., Baltusen, R., Adam, T., Hutubessy, R., Acharya, A., Evans, D., & Murray, C. J. L. (2003). Making choices in health: WHO Guide to Cost-effectiveness Analysis. from https://www.who.int/choice/publications/p_2003_generalised_cea.pdf /*ref*/Thielen, F. W., Van Mastrigt, G., Burgers, L. T., Bramer, W. M., Majoie, H., Evers, S., & Kleijnen, J. (2016). How to prepare a systematic review of economic evaluations for clinical practice guidelines: database selection and search strategy development (part 2/3). Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res, 16(6), 705-721. https://doi.org/10.1080/14737167.2016.1246962 : PMid:27805466 /*ref*/Thulliez, M., Angoulvant, D., Pisella, P. J., & Bejan-Angoulvant, T. (2018). Overview of Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses on Systemic Adverse Events Associated With Intravitreal Anti-Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor Medication Use. JAMA Ophthalmol, 136(5), 557-566. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2018.0002 : PMid:29566105 /*ref*/Urrutia, G., & Bonfill, X. (2010). [PRISMA declaration: a proposal to improve the publication of systematic reviews and meta-analyses]. Med Clin (Barc), 135(11), 507-511. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.medcli.2010.01.015 : PMid:20206945 /*ref*/van Mastrigt, G. A., Hiligsmann, M., Arts, J. J., Broos, P. H., Kleijnen, J., Evers, S. M., & Majoie, M. H. (2016). How to prepare a systematic review of economic evaluations for informing evidence-based healthcare decisions: a five-step approach (part 1/3). Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res, 16(6), 689-704. https://doi.org/10.1080/14737167.2016.1246960 : PMid:27805469 /*ref*/Walker, D. G., Wilson, R. F., Sharma, R., Bridges, J., Niessen, L., Bass, E. B., & Frick, K. (2012). Best Practices for Conducting Economic Evaluations in Health Care: A Systematic Review of Quality Assessment Tools: The Johns Hopkins University Evidence-based Practice Center. /*ref*/WHO, W. H. O. (2008). WHO guide for standardization of economic evaluations of immunization programmes (V. a. B. Department of Immunization, Trans.). Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization. /*ref*/Wijnen, B., Van Mastrigt, G., Redekop, W. K., Majoie, H., De Kinderen, R., & Evers, S. (2016). How to prepare a systematic review of economic evaluations for informing evidence-based healthcare decisions: data extraction, risk of bias, and transferability (part 3/3). Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res, 16(6), 723-732. https://doi.org/10.1080/14737167.2016.1246961 : PMid:27762640 Derechos de autor 2019 Panorama Económico https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0 |
| spellingShingle | Castañeda Guerrero, Carolina De la Hoz Restrepo, Fernando Alvis Guzmán, Nelson Quality in systematic reviews of economic evaluations of health technologies. |
| title | Quality in systematic reviews of economic evaluations of health technologies. |
| title_full | Quality in systematic reviews of economic evaluations of health technologies. |
| title_fullStr | Quality in systematic reviews of economic evaluations of health technologies. |
| title_full_unstemmed | Quality in systematic reviews of economic evaluations of health technologies. |
| title_short | Quality in systematic reviews of economic evaluations of health technologies. |
| title_sort | quality in systematic reviews of economic evaluations of health technologies. |
| url | https://revistas.unicartagena.edu.co/index.php/panoramaeconomico/article/view/2583 |