Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

LIVE: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)
Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Systematic Reviews
Published in: Systematic Reviews 1/2015

Open Access 01-12-2015 | PROTOCOL

Health state utility values for diabetic retinopathy: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis

Authors: Christopher J Sampson, Jonathan C Tosh, Christopher P Cheyne, Deborah Broadbent, Marilyn James

Published in: Systematic Reviews | Issue 1/2015

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

People with diabetic retinopathy tend to have lower levels of health-related quality of life than individuals with no retinopathy. Strategies for screening and treatment have been shown to be cost-effective. In order to reduce the bias in cost-effectiveness estimates, systematic reviews of health state utility values (HSUVs) are crucial for health technology assessment and the development of decision analytic models. A review and synthesis of HSUVs for the different stages of disease progression in diabetic retinopathy has not previously been conducted.

Methods/Design

We will conduct a systematic review of the available literature that reports HSUVs for people with diabetic retinopathy, in correspondence with current stage of disease progression and/or visual acuity. We will search Medline, EMBASE, Web of Science, Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry, Centre for Reviews and Dissemination Database, and EconLit to identify relevant English-language articles. Data will subsequently be synthesized using linear mixed effects modeling meta-regression. Additionally, reported disease severity classifications will be mapped to a four-level grading scale for diabetic retinopathy.

Discussion

The systematic review and meta-analysis will provide important evidence for future model-based economic evaluations of technologies for diabetic retinopathy. The meta-regression will enable the estimation of utility values at different disease stages for patients with particular characteristics and will also highlight where the design of the study and HSUV instrument have influenced the reported utility values. We believe this protocol to be the first of its kind to be published.

Systematic review registration

PROSPERO CRD42014012891
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
Congdon N, O’Colmain B, Klaver CCW, Klein R, Muñoz B, Friedman DS, et al.Causes and prevalence of visual impairment among adults in the United States. Arch Ophthalmology. 2004; 122(4):477–85.CrossRef
2.
3.
Mohamed Q, Gillies MC, Wong TY. Management of diabetic retinopathy: a systematic review. JAMA. 2007; 298(8):902–16.CrossRefPubMed
4.
Li R, Zhang P, Barker LE, Chowdhury FM, Zhang X. Cost-effectiveness of interventions to prevent and control diabetes mellitus: a systematic review. Diabetes care. 2010; 33(8):1872–94.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
5.
Kaltenthaler E, Tappenden P, Paisley S, Squires H. NICE DSU Technical Support Document 13: Indentifying and reviewing evidence to inform the conceptualisation and population of cost-effectiveness models. Tech. rep. 2011.
6.
National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Guide to the methods of technology appraisal. Tech. rep. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. 2008.
7.
Tosh JC, Longworth LJ, George E. Utility values in National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) Technology Appraisals. Value in Health: J Int Soc Pharmacoeconomics Outcomes Res. 2011; 14:102–9.CrossRef
8.
Brazier JE, Green C, Kanis JA. A systematic review of health state utility values for osteoporosis-related conditions. Osteoporosis Int: A J Established Result Cooperation between Eur Found Osteoporosis Nat Osteoporosis Found USA. 2002; 13(10):768–76.CrossRef
9.
Bremner KE, Chong CAKY, Tomlinson G, Alibhai SMH, Krahn MD. A review and meta-analysis of prostate cancer utilities. Med Decision Making: Int J Soc Med Decision Making. 2007; 27(3):288–98.CrossRef
10.
Doth AH, Hansson PT, Jensen MP, Taylor RS. The burden of neuropathic pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis of health utilities. Pain. 2010; 149(2):338–44.CrossRefPubMed
11.
McLernon DJ, Dillon J, Donnan PT. Health-state utilities in liver disease: a systematic review. Med Decision Making: Int J Soc Med Decision Making. 2008; 28(4):582–92.CrossRef
12.
Tengs TO, Lin TH. A meta-analysis of utility estimates for HIV/AIDS. Med Decision Making: Int J Soc Med Decision Making. 2002; 22(6):475–81.CrossRef
13.
Peasgood T, Herrmann K, Kanis JA, Brazier JE. An updated systematic review of Health State Utility Values for osteoporosis related conditions. Osteoporosis Int: J established Result Cooperation between Eur Found Osteoporosis Nat Osteoporosis Found USA. 2009; 20(6):853–68.CrossRef
14.
Sturza J.A review and meta-analysis of utility values for lung cancer. Med Decision Making: Int J Soc Med Decision Making. 2010; 30(6):685–93.CrossRef
15.
Peasgood T, Ward SE, Brazier JE. Health-state utility values in breast cancer. Expert Rev Pharmacoeconomics Outcomes Res. 2010; 10(5):553–66.CrossRef
16.
Post PN, Stiggelbout AM, Wakker PP. The utility of health states after stroke: a systematic review of the literature. Stroke; J Cerebral Circulation. 2001; 32(6):1425–9.CrossRef
17.
Lung TWC, Hayes AJ, Hayen A, Farmer A, Clarke PM. A meta-analysis of health state valuations for people with diabetes: explaining the variation across methods and implications for economic evaluation. Qual life Res: an Int J Quality Life Aspects Treat, Care Rehabilitation. 2011; 20(10):1669–78.CrossRef
18.
Wyld M, Morton RL, Hayen A, Howard K, Webster AC. A systematic review and meta-analysis of utility-based quality of life in chronic kidney disease treatments. PLoS Med. 2012; 9(9):e1001307.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
19.
Bermingham SL, Ashe JF. Systematic review of the impact of urinary tract infections on health-related quality of life. BJU Int. 2012; 110(11 Pt C):E830–6.CrossRefPubMed
20.
Doyle S, Lloyd A, Moore L, Ray J, Gray A. A systematic review and critical assessment of health state utilities. PharmacoEconomics. 2012; 30(12):1133–43.CrossRefPubMed
21.
van Litsenburg RRL, Kunst A, Huisman J, Ket JCF, Kaspers GJL, Gemke RJBJ. Health status utilities in pediatrics: a systematic review of acute lymphoblastic leukemia. Med Decision Making: Int J Soc Med Decision Making. 2014; 34:21–32.CrossRef
22.
Mohiuddin S, Payne K. Utility values for adults with unipolar depression: systematic review and meta-analysis. Med Decision Making: Int J Soc Med Decision Making. 2014; 34(5):666–85.CrossRef
23.
Beaudet A, Clegg J, Thuresson PO, Lloyd A, McEwan P. Review of utility values for economic modeling in type 2 diabetes. Value Health: J Int Soc Pharmacoeconomics Outcomes Res. 2014; 17(4):462–70.CrossRef
24.
Djalalov S, Rabeneck L, Tomlinson G, Bremner KE, Hilsden R, Hoch JS. A review and meta-analysis of colorectal cancer utilities. Medical Decision Making: Int J Soc Med Decision Making. 2014; 34(6):809–18.CrossRef
25.
Kinney MR, Burfitt SN, Stullenbarger E, Rees B, DeBolt MR. Quality of life in cardiac patient research: a meta-analysis. Nursing Res. 1996; 45(3):173–80.CrossRef
26.
Dijkers M. Quality of life after spinal cord injury: a meta analysis of the effects of disablement components. Spinal cord. 1997; 35(12):829–40.CrossRefPubMed
27.
Meacock R, Dale N, Harrison MJ. The humanistic and economic burden of systemic lupus erythematosus: a systematic review. PharmacoEconomics. 2013; 31:49–61.CrossRefPubMed
28.
Poku E, Brazier JE, Carlton J, Ferreira A. Health state utilities in patients with diabetic retinopathy, diabetic macular oedema and age-related macular degeneration: a systematic review. BMC Ophthalmology. 2013; 13:74.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
29.
Brazier JE, Papaioannou D, Cantrell A.Identifying and reviewing health state utility values for populating decision models In: Shemilt I, Mugford M, Vale L, Marsh K, Donaldson C, editors. Evidence-based decisions and economics: health care, social welfare, education and criminal justice. 2nd ed.Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell: 2010. p. 93–105.
30.
Jones S, Edwards RT. Diabetic retinopathy screening: a systematic review of the economic evidence. Diabetic Med: J Br Diabetic Assoc. 2010; 27(3):249–56.CrossRef
31.
Tosh J, Brazier JE, Evans P, Longworth LA. review of generic preference-based measures of health-related quality of life in visual disorders. Value Health. J Int Soc Pharmacoeconomics Outcomes Res. 2012; 15:118–27.CrossRef
32.
Wilkinson CP, Ferris FL, Klein RE, Lee PP, Agardh CD, Davis M, Dills D, Kampik A, Pararajasegaram R, Verdaguer JT. Proposed international clinical diabetic retinopathy and diabetic macular edema disease severity scales. Ophthalmology. 2003; 110(9):1677–82.CrossRefPubMed
33.
34.
Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study Research Group. Grading diabetic retinopathy from stereoscopic color fundus photographs-an extension of the modified airlie house classification. Ophthalmology. 1991; 98(5):786–806.CrossRef
35.
Harding SP, Broadbent DM, Neoh C, White MC, Vora J. Sensitivity and specificity of photography and direct ophthalmoscopy in screening for sight threatening eye disease: the Liverpool Diabetic Eye Study. BMJ. 1995; 311(7013):1131–5.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
36.
Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. PRISMA Group: Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. BMJ. 2009; b2535:339.
37.
Papaioannou D, Brazier JE, Paisley S. NICE DSU Technical Support Document 9: the identification, review and synthesis of health state utility values from the literature. Tech. rep. 2011.
38.
Papaioannou D, Brazier JE, Paisley S. Systematic searching and selection of health state utility values from the literature. Value Health: J Int Soc Pharmacoeconomics Outcomes Res. 2013; 16(4):686–95.CrossRef
39.
Saramago P, Manca A, Sutton AJ. Deriving input parameters for cost-effectiveness modeling: taxonomy of data types and approaches to their statistical synthesis. Value Health: J Int Soc Pharmacoeconomics Outcomes Res. 2012; 15(5):639–49.CrossRef
40.
Kaltenthaler E, Tappenden P, Paisley S. Reviewing the evidence to inform the population of cost-effectiveness models within health technology assessments. Value Health. J Int Soc Pharmacoeconomics Outcomes Res. 2013; 16(5):830–6.CrossRef
41.
Zechmeister-Koss I, Schnell-Inderst P, Zauner G. Appropriate evidence sources for populating decision analytic models within health technology assessment (HTA): a systematic review of HTA manuals and health economic guidelines. Med Decision Making: Int J Soc Med Decision Making. 2014; 34(3):288–99.CrossRef
42.
SHERPA Search. http://​www.​sherpa.​ac.​uk/​repositories/​sherpasearchallu​k.​html (2014). Accessed 3 Dec 2014.
43.
44.
Open Grey. http://​www.​opengrey.​eu (2014). Accessed 3 Dec 2014.
45.
Cooper NJ, Coyle D, Abrams K, Mugford M, Sutton A. Use of evidence in decision models: an appraisal of health technology assessments in the UK since 1997. J Health Services Res Policy. 2005; 10(4):245–50.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Health state utility values for diabetic retinopathy: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis
Authors
Christopher J Sampson
Jonathan C Tosh
Christopher P Cheyne
Deborah Broadbent
Marilyn James
Publication date
01-12-2015
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Systematic Reviews / Issue 1/2015
Electronic ISSN: 2046-4053
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-015-0006-6

Other articles of this Issue 1/2015

Systematic Reviews 1/2015 Go to the issue

Commentary

Rapid Review Summit: an overview and initiation of a research agenda

Protocol

Effectiveness of management models for facilitating self-management and patient outcomes in adults with diabetes and chronic kidney disease

Protocol

The effectiveness of interventions to achieve co-ordinated multidisciplinary care and reduce hospital use for people with chronic diseases: study protocol for a systematic review of reviews

Research

The safety and efficacy of vortioxetine for acute treatment of major depressive disorder: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Protocol

Outcomes in the offspring of mothers with pre-diabetes during pregnancy: a protocol for a systematic review

Editorial

Qualitative and mixed methods in systematic reviews