Top

BMC Health Services Research

Published in:

Open Access 01-12-2007 | Correspondence

HEE-GER: a systematic review of German economic evaluations of health care published 1990–2004

Authors: David LB Schwappach, Till A Boluarte

Published in: BMC Health Services Research | Issue 1/2007

Abstract

Background

Studies published in non-English languages are systematically missing in systematic reviews of growth and quality of economic evaluations of health care. The aims of this study were: to characterize German evaluations, published in English or German-language, in terms of various key parameters; to investigate methods to derive quality-of-life weights in cost-utility studies; and to examine changes in study characteristics over the years.

Methods

We conducted a country-specific systematic review of the German and English-language literature of German economic evaluations (assessment of or application to the German health care system) published 1990–2004. Generic and specialized health economic databases were searched. Two independent reviewers verified fulfillment of inclusion criteria and extracted study characteristics.

Results

The fulltexts of 730 articles were reviewed of which 283 fulfilled all entry criteria. 32% of included studies were published in German-language. 51% of studies evaluated pharmaceuticals and 63% were cost-effectiveness analyses. Economic appraisals concentrate on few disease categories and important health areas are strongly underrepresented. Declaration of sponsorship was associated with article language (49% English articles vs. 29% German articles, p < 0.001). The methodology used to obtain quality-of-life weights in published cost-utility studies was very diverse, poorly reported and most studies did not use German patients' or community health state valuations.

Conclusion

Many of the German-language evaluations included in our study are likely to be missing in international reviews and may be systematically different from English-language reviews from Germany. Lack of transparency and adherence to recommended reporting practices constitute a serious problem in German economic evaluations.

Available only for authorised users

Neumann PJ, Greenberg D, Olchanski NV, Stone PW, Rosen AB: Growth and Quality of the Cost-Utility Literature, 1976–2001. Value Health. 2005, 8: 3-9. 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2005.04010.x.PubMedCrossRef

Barbieri M, Drummond M, Willke R, Chancellor J, Jolain B, Towse A: Variability of Cost-Effectiveness Estimates for Pharmaceuticals in Western Europe: Lessons for Inferring Generalizability. Value Health. 2005, 8: 10-23. 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2005.03070.x.PubMedCrossRef

Rosen AB, Greenberg D, Stone PW, Olchanski NV, Neumann PJ: Quality of abstracts of papers reporting original cost-effectiveness analyses. Med Decis Making. 2005, 25: 424-428. 10.1177/0272989X05278932.PubMedCrossRef

Stone PW, Chapman RH, Sandberg EA, Liljas B, Neumann PJ: Measuring costs in cost-utility analyses. Variations in the literature. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2000, 16: 111-124. 10.1017/S0266462300161100.PubMedCrossRef

Hill SR, Mitchell AS, Henry DA: Problems with the interpretation of pharmacoeconomic analyses. JAMA. 2000, 283: 2116-2121. 10.1001/jama.283.16.2116.PubMedCrossRef

Doshi JA, Glick HA, Polsky D: Analyses of cost data in economic evaluations conducted alongside randomized controlled trials. Value Health. 2006, 9: 334-340. 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2006.00122.x.PubMedCrossRef

Armstrong R, Jackson N, Doyle J, Waters E, Howes F: Its in your hands: the value of handsearching in conducting systematic reviews of public health interventions. J Public Health (Oxf). 2005, 27: 388-391. 10.1093/pubmed/fdi056.CrossRef

Pignone M, Saha S, Hoerger T, Lohr KN, Teutsch S, Mandelblatt J: Challenges in systematic reviews of economic analyses. Ann Intern Med. 2005, 142: 1073-1079.PubMedCrossRef

Sassi F, Archard L, McDaid D: Searching literature databases for health care economic evaluations: how systematic can we afford to be?. Med Care. 2002, 40: 387-394. 10.1097/00005650-200205000-00004.PubMedCrossRef

10.

Richardson G, Manca A: Calculation of quality adjusted life years in the published literature: a review of methodology and transparency. Health Econ. 2004, 13: 1203-1210. 10.1002/hec.901.PubMedCrossRef

11.

Stalmeier PF, Goldstein MK, Holmes AM, Lenert L, Miyamoto J, Stiggelbout AM, Torrance GW, Tsevat J: What should be reported in a methods section on utility assessment?. Med Decis Making. 2001, 21: 200-207. 10.1177/02729890122062497.PubMedCrossRef

12.

Stata Corp: Stata Statistical Software: Release 9.0. 2005, College Station, TX: Stata Corporation

13.

Landis JR, Koch GG: The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 1977, 33: 159-174. 10.2307/2529310.CrossRef

14.

Brazier J, Roberts J, Deverill M: The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-36. J Health Econ. 2002, 21: 271-292. 10.1016/S0167-6296(01)00130-8.PubMedCrossRef

15.

Sharma S, Brown GC, Brown MM, Shah GK, Snow K, Brown H, Hollands H: Converting visual acuity to utilities. Can J Ophthalmol. 2000, 35: 267-272.PubMedCrossRef

16.

Torrance GW, Feeny DH, Furlong WJ, Barr RD, Zhang Y, Wang Q: Multiattribute utility function for a comprehensive health status classification system. Health Utilities Index Mark 2. Med Care. 1996, 34: 702-722. 10.1097/00005650-199607000-00004.PubMedCrossRef

17.

Garcia-Altes A: Twenty years of health care economic analysis in Spain: are we doing well?. Health Econ. 2001, 10: 715-729. 10.1002/hec.608.PubMedCrossRef

18.

Siegel JE, Byron SC, Lawrence WF: Federal Sponsorship of Cost-Effectiveness and Related Research in Health Care: 1997–2001. Value Health. 2005, 8: 223-236. 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2005.04037.x.PubMedCrossRef

19.

Neumann PJ, Rosen AB, Greenberg D, Olchanski NV, Pande R, Chapman RH, Stone PW, Ondategui-Parra S, Nadai J, Siegel JE, et al: Can we better prioritize resources for cost-utility research?. Med Decis Making. 2005, 25: 429-436. 10.1177/0272989X05276853.PubMedCrossRef

20.

Lexchin J, Bero LA, Djulbegovic B, Clark O: Pharmaceutical industry sponsorship and research outcome and quality: systematic review. BMJ. 2003, 326: 1167-1170. 10.1136/bmj.326.7400.1167.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

21.

Friedberg M, Saffran B, Stinson TJ, Nelson W, Bennett CL: Evaluation of conflict of interest in economic analyses of new drugs used in oncology. JAMA. 1999, 282: 1453-1457. 10.1001/jama.282.15.1453.PubMedCrossRef

22.

Baker CB, Johnsrud MT, Crismon ML, Rosenheck RA, Woods SW: Quantitative analysis of sponsorship bias in economic studies of antidepressants. Br J Psychiatry. 2003, 183: 498-506. 10.1192/bjp.183.6.498.PubMedCrossRef

23.

Schwappach DL, Koeck CM: Selective COX-2 inhibitors: a health economic perspective. Wien Med Wochenschr. 2003, 153: 116-122. 10.1046/j.1563-258X.2003.03006.x.PubMedCrossRef

24.

Knox KS, Adams JR, Djulbegovic B, Stinson TJ, Tomor C, Bennet CL: Reporting and dissemination of industry versus non-profit sponsored economic analyses of six novel drugs used in oncology. Ann Oncol. 2000, 11: 1591-1595. 10.1023/A:1008309817708.PubMedCrossRef

25.

Bell CM, Urbach DR, Ray JG, Bayoumi A, Rosen AB, Greenberg D, Neumann PJ: Bias in published cost effectiveness studies: systematic review. BMJ. 2006, 332: 699-703. 10.1136/bmj.38737.607558.80.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

26.

Pritchard C: Developments in economic evaluation in health care: A review of HEED. 2004, London: Office of Health Economics (OHE)

27.

Griebsch I, Coast J, Brown J: Quality-adjusted life-years lack quality in pediatric care: a critical review of published cost-utility studies in child health. Pediatrics. 2005, 115: e600-e614. 10.1542/peds.2004-2127.PubMedCrossRef

28.

Neumann PJ, Stone PW, Chapman RH, Sandberg EA, Bell CM: The quality of published cost-utility analyses, 1976–1997. Ann Intern Med. 2000, 132: 964-972.PubMedCrossRef

29.

Neumann PJ, Zinner DE, Wright JC: Are Methods for estimating QALYs in cost-effectiveness analyses improving?. Med Decis Making. 1997, 17: 402-408.PubMedCrossRef

30.

Gerard K, Smoker I, Seymour J: Raising the quality of cost-utility analyses: lessons learnt and still to learn. Health Policy. 1999, 46: 217-238. 10.1016/S0168-8510(98)00061-X.PubMedCrossRef

31.

Greiner W, Claes C, Busschbach JJ, Graf von der Schulenburg JM: Validating the EQ-5D with time trade off for the German population. Eur J Health Econ. 2004

32.

Badia X, Roset M, Herdman M, Kind P: A comparison of United Kingdom and Spanish general population time trade-off values for EQ-5D health states. Med Decis Making. 2001, 21: 7-16.PubMedCrossRef

33.

Johnson JA, Ohinmaa A, Murti B, Sintonen H, Coons SJ: Comparison of Finnish and U.S.-based visual analog scale valuations of the EQ-5D measure. Med Decis Making. 2000, 20: 281-289.PubMedCrossRef

34.

Tsuchiya A, Ikeda S, Ikegami N, Nishimura S, Sakai I, Fukuda T, Hamashima C, Hisashige A, Tamura M: Estimating an EQ-5D population value set: the case of Japan. Health Econ. 2002, 11: 341-353. 10.1002/hec.673.PubMedCrossRef

35.

Greiner W, Claes C, Busschbach JJ, Graf von der Schulenburg JM: Validating the EQ-5D with time trade off for the German population. Eur J Health Econ. 2004

36.

Dolan P: Modeling valuations for EuroQol health states. Med Care. 1997, 35: 1095-1108. 10.1097/00005650-199711000-00002.PubMedCrossRef

37.

Greiner W, Weijnen T, Nieuwenhuizen M, Oppe S, Badia X, Busschbach J, Buxton M, Dolan P, Kind P, Krabbe P, et al: A single European currency for EQ-5D health states. Results from a six-country study. Eur J Health Econ. 2003, 4: 222-231. 10.1007/s10198-003-0182-5.PubMedCrossRef

38.

Greiner W, Claes C, Busschbach JJ, Graf von der Schulenburg JM: Validating the EQ-5D with time trade off for the German population. Eur J Health Econ. 2005, 6: 124-130. 10.1007/s10198-004-0264-z.PubMedCrossRef

39.

Brauer CA, Rosen AB, Greenberg D, Neumann PJ: Trends in the Measurement of Health Utilities in Published Cost-Utility Analyses. Value Health. 2006, 9: 213-218. 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2006.00116.x.PubMedCrossRef

40.

Sonnad SS, Greenberg D, Rosen AB, Neumann PJ: Diffusion of published cost-utility analyses in the field of health policy and practice. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2005, 21: 399-402.PubMedCrossRef

41.

Greenberg D, Pliskin JS: Preference-based outcome measures in cost-utility analyses. A 20-year overview. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2002, 18: 461-466.PubMed

42.

de Pouvourville G, Ulmann P, Nixon J, Boulenger S, Glanville J, Drummond M: The Diffusion of Health Economics Knowledge in Europe : The EURONHEED (European Network of Health Economics Evaluation Database) Project. Pharmacoeconomics. 2005, 23: 113-120. 10.2165/00019053-200523020-00003.PubMedCrossRef

43.

Nixon J, Ulmann P, Glanville J, Boulenger S, Drummond M, de PG: The European Network of Health Economic Evaluation Databases (EURO NHEED) Project. Eur J Health Econ. 2004, 5: 183-187.PubMedCrossRef

The pre-publication history for this paper can be accessed here:http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6963/7/7/prepub

Title: HEE-GER: a systematic review of German economic evaluations of health care published 1990–2004
Authors: David LB Schwappach
Till A Boluarte
Publication date: 01-12-2007
Publisher: BioMed Central
Published in: BMC Health Services Research / Issue 1/2007
Electronic ISSN: 1472-6963
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-7-7

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

HEE-GER: a systematic review of German economic evaluations of health care published 1990–2004

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 1/2007

Capacity management of nursing staff as a vehicle for organizational improvement

Promoting contraceptive use among unmarried female migrants in one factory in Shanghai: a pilot workplace intervention

Hospital outpatient perceptions of the physical environment of waiting areas: the role of patient characteristics on atmospherics in one academic medical center

Exploring the effect of changes to service provision on the use of unscheduled care in England: population surveys

Day care cataract surgery in Central and Southern Italy: a multicentric survey

Exploring the effects of telehealth on medical human resources supply: a qualitative case study in remote regions