Blog
About

  • Record: found
  • Abstract: found
  • Article: found
Is Open Access

Cuestiones controvertidas en evaluación económica (II): medidas de resultado en salud de las intervenciones sanitarias Translated title: Controversial Issues in Economic Evaluation (II): health Outcomes of Health Care Interventions

Read this article at

Bookmark
      There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

      Abstract

      En este segundo artículo, de una serie de tres, debatiremos, empleando la técnica Metaplan, sobre cuestiones controvertidas de las medidas de resultado en salud en la evaluación económica de intervenciones sanitarias (EEIS). Las cuatro áreas de debate se centraron en: elección de las medidas de resultado en salud: en abstracto ninguna medida es superior a otra. Extrapolación y transferibilidad de las medidas de resultado en salud: los resultados de una EEIS de un país no deberían ser asumidos en otro sin realizar ciertos ajustes de distinto tipo. Instrumentos adecuados para medir la calidad de vida en España: se apuntó el EQ-5D como conveniente debido a su extendido uso internacional. Y comparaciones indirectas: la combinación de ambas comparaciones, directas e indirectas, sería recomendable si la prueba para las estimaciones indirectas fue consistente y estaba validada. Finalmente, se proponen líneas de investigación para tratar de superar las discrepancias identificadas en cada una de estas áreas, entre las cuáles se encuentran: la realización de estudios de correlación entre puntuaciones de instrumentos específicos y genéricos de medición de calidad de vida, actualizar o crear una base de datos de evaluaciones económicas realizadas en España, la estimación de los conjuntos de utilidades de la población española para instrumentos genéricos y específicos preexistentes o bien, establecer una manera común de mostrar los resultados de un meta-análisis en red.

      Translated abstract

      In this second article of a series of three, we will discuss using the Metaplan technique on controversial issues of health outcomes in economic evaluation of health care interventions. The four-discussion areas focus on: choice of health outcomes measures, where any outcome measure is superior to another; extrapolation and transferability of health outcomes measures, which should not be assumed the results of an EEIS of one country to another without making certain adjustments; appropriate instruments to measure quality of life in Spain, where the EQ-5D was indicated as convenient due to its widespread international use; and, indirect comparisons, where the combination of both comparisons, direct and indirect, it would be advisable if the test for indirect estimates is consistent and has been validated. Finally, research lines to try to overcome the identified discrepancies were identified in each of these areas, some of those are: doing studies of correlation between scores of specific and generic instruments measuring quality of life; update or create a database of economic evaluations in Spain; estimating utilities for the Spanish population by existing generic and specific instruments; or, establish a common way to show the results of a meta-analysis network.

      Related collections

      Most cited references 80

      • Record: found
      • Abstract: not found
      • Article: not found

      What is value in health care?

        Bookmark
        • Record: found
        • Abstract: not found
        • Article: not found

        The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-36

          Bookmark
          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Interpreting indirect treatment comparisons and network meta-analysis for health-care decision making: report of the ISPOR Task Force on Indirect Treatment Comparisons Good Research Practices: part 1.

          Evidence-based health-care decision making requires comparisons of all relevant competing interventions. In the absence of randomized, controlled trials involving a direct comparison of all treatments of interest, indirect treatment comparisons and network meta-analysis provide useful evidence for judiciously selecting the best choice(s) of treatment. Mixed treatment comparisons, a special case of network meta-analysis, combine direct and indirect evidence for particular pairwise comparisons, thereby synthesizing a greater share of the available evidence than a traditional meta-analysis. This report from the ISPOR Indirect Treatment Comparisons Good Research Practices Task Force provides guidance on the interpretation of indirect treatment comparisons and network meta-analysis to assist policymakers and health-care professionals in using its findings for decision making. We start with an overview of how networks of randomized, controlled trials allow multiple treatment comparisons of competing interventions. Next, an introduction to the synthesis of the available evidence with a focus on terminology, assumptions, validity, and statistical methods is provided, followed by advice on critically reviewing and interpreting an indirect treatment comparison or network meta-analysis to inform decision making. We finish with a discussion of what to do if there are no direct or indirect treatment comparisons of randomized, controlled trials possible and a health-care decision still needs to be made. Copyright © 2011 International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
            Bookmark

            Author and article information

            Affiliations
            [1 ] Universidad de Castilla La Mancha
            [2 ] Universitat Pompeu Fabra
            [3 ] Oblikue Consulting
            [4 ] Escuela Andaluza de Salud Pública
            Contributors
            Role: ND
            Role: ND
            Role: ND
            Role: ND
            Journal
            resp
            Revista Española de Salud Pública
            Rev. Esp. Salud Publica
            Ministerio de Sanidad y Consumo (Madrid )
            1135-5727
            April 2015
            : 89
            : 2
            : 125-135
            S1135-57272015000200002

            http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

            Product
            Product Information: SciELO Spain
            Categories
            Health Policy & Services

            Comments

            Comment on this article