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

Elizabeth Parody-Rúa, Maria Rubio-Valera, César Guevara-Cuellar, Ainhoa Gómez-Lumbreras, Marc Casajuana-Closas, Cristina Carbonell-Duacastella and Ignacio Aznar-Lou
Additional contact information
Elizabeth Parody-Rúa: Teaching, Research & Innovation Unit, Parc Sanitari Sant Joan de Déu–Institut de Recerca Sant Joan de Déu, 08830 Barcelona, Spain
Maria Rubio-Valera: Teaching, Research & Innovation Unit, Parc Sanitari Sant Joan de Déu–Institut de Recerca Sant Joan de Déu, 08830 Barcelona, Spain
César Guevara-Cuellar: Faculty of Health Sciences, Universidad Icesi, 760030 Cali, Colombia
Ainhoa Gómez-Lumbreras: Institut Universitari d’Investigació en Atenció Primària Jordi Gol (IDIAPJGol), 08007 Barcelona, Spain
Marc Casajuana-Closas: Institut Universitari d’Investigació en Atenció Primària Jordi Gol (IDIAPJGol), 08007 Barcelona, Spain
Cristina Carbonell-Duacastella: Teaching, Research & Innovation Unit, Parc Sanitari Sant Joan de Déu–Institut de Recerca Sant Joan de Déu, 08830 Barcelona, Spain
Ignacio Aznar-Lou: Teaching, Research & Innovation Unit, Parc Sanitari Sant Joan de Déu–Institut de Recerca Sant Joan de Déu, 08830 Barcelona, Spain

IJERPH, 2020, vol. 17, issue 4, 1-18

Abstract: 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.

Keywords: economic evaluation; systematic review; real world data; real world evidence; electronic health records (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: I I1 I3 Q Q5 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2020
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/4/1171/pdf (application/pdf)
https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/4/1171/ (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:17:y:2020:i:4:p:1171-:d:319873

Access Statistics for this article

IJERPH is currently edited by Ms. Jenna Liu

More articles in IJERPH from MDPI
Bibliographic data for series maintained by MDPI Indexing Manager ().