POSC56 Healthcare Resource Use (HCRU), Cost Inputs, and Cost-Effectiveness Analysis (CEA) for Patients with Muscle Invasive Urothelial Carcinoma (MIUC) Treated with Radical Resection (RR): A Systematic Literature Review (SLR)
0
Citation
0
Reference
10
Related Paper
A systematic review of the results of randomized, controlled trials employs explicit, systematic methods to produce unbiased and precise estimates of the effect of a treatment on outcomes of clinical importance. The results of such systematic reviews are of importance in that they inform providers and consumers about the effect of treatments and identify priorities for new research. The Cochrane Collaboration is a systematic programme to try to harness this valuable information. An overview of the actual status of systematic reviews of health care interventions is given and a miniseries of papers on systematic reviews is introduced.
Cochrane collaboration
Systematic error
Cite
Citations (9)
Pediatric Oncology
Cite
Citations (77)
“What is the impact of bias when selecting studies for a literature review as well as interpreting the results from these selected studies for non-systematic literature reviews as compared to systematic literature reviews?”
To measure and compare the impact of bias on both systematic and non-systematic literature reviews a non-systematic case study was selected. This case study was repeated using the same aim and boundaries, but with a systematic approach towards the reviewing process. The case study and the repeat review were then compared to each other. Sources of bias and their impact were then identified for both the case study and the repeat review.
The results showed that both the non-systematic case study and the systematic repeat review were impacted by bias when selecting and interpreting studies (place of publication bias, citation bias, etc.) potentially affecting a significant number of the included studies in the repeat review and the case study. This evidence refutes claims made by authors like Tranfield, David & Palminder (2003) which deemed the systematic literature review to be superior. However, improving the non-systematic case study is hard, because it lacks a clear search strategy while the systematic repeat review does provide this.
Systematic error
Cite
Citations (3)
Comprehensive interventions have been widely used in health system, public health, education and communities and have become increasingly focus of systematic reviews. There have been many reporting guidelines about systematic reviews, but they do not take the features of comprehensive interventions in medical area into consideration. As a result, PRISMA-CI has been developed as an extension of PRISMA, which adds or modifies the essential items of PRISMA. This paper introduces the items of PRISMA-CI and explains the items with an example to help authors, publishers, and readers understand PRISMA-CI and use it in systematic reviews on comprehensive interventions. As it become more and more popular with comprehensive interventions, PRISMA-CI will provide important structure and guidance for its systematic review and Meta-analysis.复杂干预在卫生系统、公共卫生、教育和社区中的应用越来越广泛，并且逐渐成为系统综述关注的领域。现在国际上发布了一系列关于系统综述报告规范性的指南，但这些指南没有充分考虑医药卫生领域中复杂干预措施报告的特殊性。在此背景下，PRISMA关于复杂干预的扩展版PRISMA-CI应运而生，它针对复杂干预的特点，在PRISMA的基础上增加或修改部分重要条目。本文将重点介绍PRISMA-CI的特有条目，并在此基础上辅以实例解读，以帮助作者、出版商和读者理解PRISMA-CI，并应用到复杂干预系统综述的报告中。随着复杂干预的兴起和流行，PRISMA-CI将为这类干预的系统综述和Meta分析提供重要的框架指导建议。.
Medical literature
Cite
Citations (4)
Comparison of search strategies in systematic reviews of adverse effects to other systematic reviews
Abstract Background Research indicates that the methods used to identify data for systematic reviews of adverse effects may need to differ from other systematic reviews. Objectives To compare search methods in systematic reviews of adverse effects with other reviews. Methods The search methodologies in 849 systematic reviews of adverse effects were compared with other reviews. Results Poor reporting of search strategies is apparent in both systematic reviews of adverse effects and other types of systematic reviews. Systematic reviews of adverse effects are less likely to restrict their searches to MEDLINE or include only randomised controlled trials ( RCT s). The use of other databases is largely dependent on the topic area and the year the review was conducted, with more databases searched in more recent reviews. Adverse effects search terms are used by 72% of reviews and despite recommendations only two reviews report using floating subheadings. Conclusions The poor reporting of search strategies in systematic reviews is universal, as is the dominance of searching MEDLINE . However, reviews of adverse effects are more likely to include a range of study designs (not just RCT s) and search beyond MEDLINE .
Cite
Citations (51)
Direct cost
Cite
Citations (0)
Objective: To quantify the economic impact of premenstrual syndrome (PMS) on the employer. Methods: Data were collected from 374 women aged 18–45 with regular menses. Direct costs were quantified using administrative claims of these patients and the Medicare Fee Schedule. Indirect costs were quantified by both self-reported days of work missed and lost productivity at work. Regression analyses were used to develop a model to project PMS-related direct and indirect costs. Results: A total of 29.6% (n = 111) of the participants were diagnosed with PMS. A PMS diagnosis was associated with an average annual increase of $59 in direct costs (P < 0.026) and $4333 in indirect costs per patient (P < 0.0001) compared with patients without PMS. Conclusions: A PMS diagnosis correlated with a modest increase in direct medical costs and a large increase in indirect costs.
Indirect effect
Direct cost
Cite
Citations (103)
In this article, we describe the strengths and weaknesses of several methods of locating systematic reviews, including electronic databases such as MEDLINE, Best Evidence (the electronic version of ACP Journal Club and Evidence-Based Medicine), and the Cochrane Library (a regularly updated source of reviews and controlled trials produced by the Cochrane Collaboration). We also present steps that can be used to critically appraise review articles; as an example, we use a systematic review that evaluates the gastrointestinal toxicity of various nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in the context of a clinical scenario.
Critical appraisal
Evidence-Based Medicine
Cite
Citations (166)
Abstract Aim This study aimed to evaluate and compare the performance of two methodological instruments to appraise systematic reviews and to identify potential disagreements of systematic review authors regarding risk of bias (RoB) evaluation of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) included in systematic reviews on peri‐implant diseases. Material/methods We searched Medline, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, PubMed Central, and Google Scholar for systematic reviews on peri‐implant diseases published before July 11, 2017. Two authors independently evaluated the RoB and methodological quality of the systematic reviews by applying the Risk of Bias in Systematic Reviews (ROBIS) tool and Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) checklist, respectively. We assessed the RoB scores of the same RCTs published in different systematic reviews. Results Of the 32 systematic reviews identified, 23 reviews addressed the clinical topic of peri‐implantitis. A high RoB was detected for most systematic reviews (n=25) using ROBIS, whilst five systematic reviews displayed low methodological quality by AMSTAR. Almost 30% of the RoB comparisons (for the same RCTs) had different RoB ratings across systematic reviews. Conclusions The ROBIS tool appears to provide more conservative results than AMSTAR checklist. Considerable disagreement was found among systematic review authors rating the same RCT included in different systematic reviews.
Critical appraisal
Cite
Citations (12)