1
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Economic evaluation of clinical quality registries: a systematic review

      research-article

      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

          Objectives

          The objective of this systematic review was to examine the existing evidence base for the cost-effectiveness or cost-benefit of clinical quality registries (CQRs).

          Design

          Systematic review and narrative synthesis.

          Data sources

          Nine electronic bibliographic databases, including MEDLINE, EMBASE and CENTRAL, in the period from January 2000 to August 2019.

          Eligibility criteria

          Any peer-reviewed published study or grey literature in English which had reported on an economic evaluation of one or more CQRs.

          Data extraction and synthesis

          Data were screened, extracted and appraised by two independent reviewers. A narrative synthesis was performed around key attributes of each CQR and on key patient outcomes or changes to healthcare processes or utilisation. A narrative synthesis of the cost-effectiveness associated with CQRs was also conducted. The primary outcome was cost-effectiveness, in terms of the estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), cost savings or return-on-investment (ROI) attributed to CQR implementation.

          Results

          Three studies and one government report met the inclusion criteria for the review. A study of the National Surgical Quality Improvement Programme (NSQIP) in the USA found that the cost-effectiveness of this registry improved over time, based on an ICER of US$8312 per postoperative event avoided. A separate study in Canada estimated the ROI to be US$3.43 per US$1.00 invested in the NSQIP. An evaluation of a post-splenectomy CQR in Australia estimated that registry cost-effectiveness improved from US$234 329 to US$18 358 per life year gained when considering the benefits accrued over the lifetime of the population. The government report evaluating five Australian CQRs estimated an overall return of 1.6–5.5 times the cost of investment.

          Conclusions

          Available data indicate that CQRs can be cost-effective and can lead to significant returns on investment. It is clear that further studies that evaluate the economic and clinical impacts of CQRs are necessary.

          PROSPERO registration number

          CRD42018116807.

          Related collections

          Most cited references25

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

          Criteria list for assessment of methodological quality of economic evaluations: Consensus on Health Economic Criteria.

          The aim of the Consensus on Health Economic Criteria (CHEC) project is to develop a criteria list for assessment of the methodological quality of economic evaluations in systematic reviews. The criteria list resulting from this CHEC project should be regarded as a minimum standard. The criteria list has been developed using a Delphi method. Three Delphi rounds were needed to reach consensus. Twenty-three international experts participated in the Delphi panel. The Delphi panel achieved consensus over a generic core set of items for the quality assessment of economic evaluations. Each item of the CHEC-list was formulated as a question that can be answered by yes or no. To standardize the interpretation of the list and facilitate its use, the project team also provided an operationalization of the criteria list items. There was consensus among a group of international experts regarding a core set of items that can be used to assess the quality of economic evaluations in systematic reviews. Using this checklist will make future systematic reviews of economic evaluations more transparent, informative, and comparable. Consequently, researchers and policy-makers might use these systematic reviews more easily. The CHEC-list can be downloaded freely from http://www.beoz.unimaas.nl/chec/.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Registry-based randomized controlled trials- what are the advantages, challenges, and areas for future research?

            Registry-based randomized controlled trials are defined as pragmatic trials that use registries as a platform for case records, data collection, randomization, and follow-up. Recently, the application of registry-based randomized controlled trials has attracted increasing attention in health research to address comparative effectiveness research questions in real-world settings, mainly due to their low cost, enhanced generalizability of findings, rapid consecutive enrollment, and the potential completeness of follow-up for the reference population, when compared with conventional randomized effectiveness trials. However several challenges of registry-based randomized controlled trials have to be taken into consideration, including registry data quality, ethical issues, and methodological challenges. In this article, we summarize the advantages, challenges, and areas for future research related to registry-based randomized controlled trials.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              How to prepare a systematic review of economic evaluations for informing evidence-based healthcare decisions: data extraction, risk of bias, and transferability (part 3/3).

              This article is part of the series "How to Prepare a Systematic Review (SR) of Economic Evaluations (EE) for Informing Evidence-based Healthcare Decisions" in which a five-step-approach for conducting a SR of EE is proposed. Areas covered: This paper explains the data extraction process, the risk of bias assessment and the transferability of EEs by means of a narrative review and expert opinion. SRs play a critical role in determining the comparative cost-effectiveness of healthcare interventions. It is important to determine the risk of bias and the transferability of an EE. Expert commentary: Over the past decade, several criteria lists have been developed. This article aims to provide recommendations on these criteria lists based on the thoroughness of development, feasibility, overall quality, recommendations of leading organizations, and widespread use.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                BMJ Open
                BMJ Open
                bmjopen
                bmjopen
                BMJ Open
                BMJ Publishing Group (BMA House, Tavistock Square, London, WC1H 9JR )
                2044-6055
                2019
                15 December 2019
                : 9
                : 12
                : e030984
                Affiliations
                [1 ] departmentSchool of Public Health and Preventive Medicine , Monash University , Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
                [2 ] departmentMelbourne Medical School , The University of Melbourne , Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
                [3 ] departmentDepartrment of Cardiology , The Alfred Hospital , Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
                [4 ] departmentDepartment of Cardiology , The Royal Melbourne Hospital , Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
                Author notes
                [Correspondence to ] Dr Ella Zomer; ella.zomer@ 123456monash.edu
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7059-1959
                Article
                bmjopen-2019-030984
                10.1136/bmjopen-2019-030984
                6924778
                31843824
                8c320a5d-6cd6-4163-a00e-453dd088b36a
                © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.

                This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See:  http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.

                History
                : 10 April 2019
                : 09 September 2019
                : 12 November 2019
                Categories
                Health Economics
                Original Research
                1506
                1701
                Custom metadata
                unlocked

                Medicine
                health economics,clinical quality registry,cost-effectiveness,economic evaluation,benchmarking

                Comments

                Comment on this article