Quality Appraisal in Systematic Literature Reviews of Studies Eliciting Health State Utility Values: Conceptual Considerations

Muchandifunga Trust Muchadeyi (), Karla Hernandez-Villafuerte (), Gian Luca Tanna (), Rachel D. Eckford (), Yan Feng, Michela Meregaglia (), Tessa Peasgood (), Stavros Petrou (), Jasper Ubels () and Michael Schlander ()
Additional contact information
Muchandifunga Trust Muchadeyi: German Cancer Research Centre (DKFZ) Foundation under Public Law
Karla Hernandez-Villafuerte: German Cancer Research Centre (DKFZ) Foundation under Public Law
Gian Luca Tanna: University of Applied Sciences and Arts of Southern Switzerland
Rachel D. Eckford: German Cancer Research Centre (DKFZ) Foundation under Public Law
Michela Meregaglia: SDA Bocconi School of Management
Tessa Peasgood: University of Melbourne
Stavros Petrou: University of Oxford
Jasper Ubels: German Cancer Research Centre (DKFZ) Foundation under Public Law
Michael Schlander: German Cancer Research Centre (DKFZ) Foundation under Public Law

PharmacoEconomics, 2024, vol. 42, issue 7, No 5, 767-782

Abstract: Abstract Background The increasing number of studies that generate health state utility values (HSUVs) and the impact of HSUVs on cost-utility analyses make a robust tailored quality appraisal (QA) tool for systematic reviews of these studies necessary. Objective This study aimed to address conceptual issues regarding QA in systematic reviews of studies eliciting HSUVs by establishing a consensus on the definitions, dimensions and scope of a QA tool specific to this context. Methods A modified Delphi method was used in this study. An international multidisciplinary panel of seven experts was purposively assembled. The experts engaged in two anonymous online survey rounds. After each round, the experts received structured and controlled feedback on the previous phase. Controlled feedback allowed the experts to re-evaluate and adjust their positions based on collective insights. Following these surveys, a virtual face-to-face meeting was held to resolve outstanding issues. Consensus was defined a priori at all stages of the modified Delphi process. Results The response rates to the first-round and second-round questionnaires and the virtual consensus meeting were 100%, 86% and 71%, respectively. The entire process culminated in a consensus on the definitions of scientific quality, QA, the three QA dimensions—reporting, relevance and methodological quality—and the scope of a QA tool specific to studies that elicit HSUVs. Conclusions Achieving this consensus marks a pivotal step towards developing a QA tool specific to systematic reviews of studies eliciting HSUVs. Future research will build on this foundation, identify QA items, signalling questions and response options, and develop a QA tool specific to studies eliciting HSUVs.

Date: 2024
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40273-024-01365-z Abstract (text/html)
Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

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:spr:pharme:v:42:y:2024:i:7:d:10.1007_s40273-024-01365-z

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://www.springer.com/economics/journal/40273

DOI: 10.1007/s40273-024-01365-z

Access Statistics for this article

PharmacoEconomics is currently edited by Timothy Wrightson and Christopher I. Carswell

More articles in PharmacoEconomics from Springer
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Sonal Shukla () and Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing ().