G.3Health economics update literature review protocol

Health economics literature review protocol
ObjectivesThe aim is to identify economic studies relevant to the review questions for the 2011 update set out above (Appendix 2A and 2B).
CriteriaPopulations, interventions and comparators as specified in the review protocols above. Must be a relevant economic study design (cost-utility analysis, cost-benefit analysis, cost-effectiveness analysis, cost-consequence analysis, comparative cost analysis).
Search StrategySee appendix A
Review StrategyStudy assessment:
NICE economic evaluation checklistg

Inclusion/exclusion criteria
If a study is rated as both ‘Directly applicable’ and ‘Minor limitations’ (by economic evaluation checklist) then it should be included in the guideline. An evidence table should be completed and it should be included in the economic profile (see Training session on the economic profile).
If a study is rated as either ‘Not applicable’ or ‘Very serious limitations’ then it should be excluded from the guideline. It should not be included in the economic profile and there is no need to include an evidence table.
If a study is rated as ‘Partially applicable’ and/or ‘Potentially serious limitations’ then there is discretion over whether it should be included. The health economist should make a decision based on the relative applicability and quality of the available evidence for that question. The ultimate aim being to include studies that are helpful for decision making in the context of the guideline.

Also exclude:
unpublished reports
abstract-only studies
reviews of economic evaluationsh
foreign language articles

Where there is discretion
The health economist should be guided by the following hierarchies.
OECD countries with predominantly public health insurance systems (e.g. France, Germany, Sweden)
OECD countries with predominantly private health insurance systems (e.g. USA, Switzerland)
Non-OECD settings (always be ‘Not applicable’)

Economic study type:
Cost-utility analysis
Other type of full economic evaluation (cost-benefit analysis or cost-effectiveness analysis)
Comparative cost analyses
Cost of illness studies (always be ‘Not applicable’)

Year of analysis:
The more recent the study, the more applicable it is

Quality of effectiveness data used in the economic analysis:
The more closely the effectiveness data used in the economic analysis matches with the studies included for the clinical review the more useful the analysis will be to decision making for the guideline.

From: Appendix G, Review protocols [2011]

Cover of Anaemia Management in Chronic Kidney Disease
Anaemia Management in Chronic Kidney Disease: Rapid Update 2011 [Internet].
NICE Clinical Guidelines, No. 114.
National Clinical Guideline Centre (UK).
Copyright © 2011, National Clinical Guideline Centre.

Apart from any fair dealing for the purposes of research or private study, criticism or review, as permitted under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988, no part of this publication may be reproduced, stored or transmitted in any form or by any means, without the prior written permission of the publisher or, in the case of reprographic reproduction, in accordance with the terms of licences issued by the Copyright Licensing Agency in the UK. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside the terms stated here should be sent to the publisher at the UK address printed on this page.

The use of registered names, trademarks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant laws and regulations and therefore for general use.

The rights of National Clinical Guideline Centre to be identified as Author of this work have been asserted by them in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988.

PubMed Health. A service of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.