SynthesisInternational journal of environmental research and public health2020
Economic Evaluations Informed Exclusively by Real World Data: A Systematic Review.
Synthesis in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Cost-effectiveness of integrative oncology for sustainable and patient-centred cancer care: a systematic review in the context of the WHO global traditional medicine strategy 2025-2034.Frontiers in public health · 2026Pooled it
- Cost-benefit analysis of nirsevimab for respiratory syncytial virus prevention in infants: a population-based study.European journal of pediatrics · 2026Observational
- Article
- Advances in Addressing Patient Heterogeneity in Economic Evaluation: A Review of the Methods Literature.PharmacoEconomics · 2024Review
- How the structural determinants of health inequities impact access to prescription medication for pregnant women in Australia: a narrative review.The Lancet regional health. Western Pacific · 2024Review
- Budget Impact Analysis of Risperidone Use and Adverse Event Monitoring in Autism Spectrum Disorder in Brazil: Assessment of Theoretical Versus Real Data.PharmacoEconomics - open · 2023Article
- Article
- Real World Data in Health Technology Assessment of Complex Health Technologies.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2022Article
- Use of real-world evidence in economic assessments of pharmaceuticals in the United States.Journal of managed care & specialty pharmacy · 2021Article
- Big Data and Real-World Data based Cost-Effectiveness Studies and Decision-making Models: A Systematic Review and Analysis.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2021Article
- A Systematic Review of Sources of Outcomes and Cost Data Utilized in Economic Evaluation Research Conducted in the Gulf Cooperation Council.Risk management and healthcare policy · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.