| Title |
A Practical Guide to Conducting a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Health State Utility Values
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
PharmacoEconomics, May 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s40273-018-0670-1 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Stavros Petrou, Joseph Kwon, Jason Madan |
| Abstract |
Economic analysts are increasingly likely to rely on systematic reviews and meta-analyses of health state utility values to inform the parameter inputs of decision-analytic modelling-based economic evaluations. Beyond the context of economic evaluation, evidence from systematic reviews and meta-analyses of health state utility values can be used to inform broader health policy decisions. This paper provides practical guidance on how to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of health state utility values. The paper outlines a number of stages in conducting a systematic review, including identifying the appropriate evidence, study selection, data extraction and presentation, and quality and relevance assessment. The paper outlines three broad approaches that can be used to synthesise multiple estimates of health utilities for a given health state or condition, namely fixed-effect meta-analysis, random-effects meta-analysis and mixed-effects meta-regression. Each approach is illustrated by a synthesis of utility values for a hypothetical decision problem, and software code is provided. The paper highlights a number of methodological issues pertinent to the conduct of meta-analysis or meta-regression. These include the importance of limiting synthesis to 'comparable' utility estimates, for example those derived using common utility measurement approaches and sources of valuation; the effects of reliance on limited or poorly reported published data from primary utility assessment studies; the use of aggregate outcomes within analyses; approaches to generating measures of uncertainty; handling of median utility values; challenges surrounding the disentanglement of utility estimates collected serially within the context of prospective observational studies or prospective randomised trials; challenges surrounding the disentanglement of intervention effects; and approaches to measuring model validity. Areas of methodological debate and avenues for future research are highlighted. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 24 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 6 | 25% |
| United Kingdom | 5 | 21% |
| Australia | 2 | 8% |
| Brazil | 1 | 4% |
| Saudi Arabia | 1 | 4% |
| New Zealand | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 8 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 18 | 75% |
| Scientists | 3 | 13% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 8% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 4% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 47 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 47 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 10 | 21% |
| Researcher | 8 | 17% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 11% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 2 | 4% |
| Student > Bachelor | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 4 | 9% |
| Unknown | 17 | 36% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 6 | 13% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 6 | 13% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 9% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 4 | 9% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 3 | 6% |
| Other | 5 | 11% |
| Unknown | 19 | 40% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 21. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 12 July 2018.
All research outputs
#1,767,632
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from PharmacoEconomics
#109
of 1,991 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#36,932
of 339,653 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PharmacoEconomics
#3
of 40 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,991 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 339,653 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 40 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.