Economic Evaluations Informed Exclusively by Real World Data: A Systematic Review

Economic evaluations using Real World Data (RWD) has been increasing in the very recent years, however, this source of information has several advantages and limitations. The aim of this review was to assess the quality of full economic evaluations (EE) developed using RWD. A systematic review was c...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inInternational journal of environmental research and public health Vol. 17; no. 4; p. 1171
Main Authors Parody-Rúa, Elizabeth, Rubio-Valera, Maria, Guevara-Cuellar, César, Gómez-Lumbreras, Ainhoa, Casajuana-Closas, Marc, Carbonell-Duacastella, Cristina, Aznar-Lou, Ignacio
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published Switzerland MDPI 12.02.2020
Subjects
Checklist
Cost-Benefit Analysis
Data Analysis
Economics
Humans
Reference Standards
Review
real world data
economic evaluation
electronic health records
real world evidence
systematic review
Online AccessGet full text

Cover

More Information
Summary:Economic evaluations using Real World Data (RWD) has been increasing in the very recent years, however, this source of information has several advantages and limitations. The aim of this review was to assess the quality of full economic evaluations (EE) developed using RWD. A systematic review was carried out through articles from the following databases: PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. Included were studies that employed RWD for both costs and effectiveness. Methodological quality of the studies was assessed using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) checklist. Of the 14,011 studies identified, 93 were included. Roughly half of the studies were carried out in a hospital setting. The most frequently assessed illnesses were neoplasms while the most evaluated interventions were pharmacological. The main source of costs and effects of RWD were information systems. The most frequent clinical outcome was survival. Some 47% of studies met at least 80% of CHEERS criteria. Studies were conducted with samples of 100-1000 patients or more, were randomized, and those that reported bias controls were those that fulfilled most CHEERS criteria. In conclusion, fewer than half the studies met 80% of the CHEERS checklist criteria.
Bibliography:ObjectType-Article-1
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-2
content type line 23
ObjectType-Undefined-3
ISSN:1660-4601
1661-7827
1660-4601
DOI:10.3390/ijerph17041171