4.2 Review

QUALITY-ADJUSTED LIFE-YEARS FOR THE ESTIMATION OF EFFECTIVENESS OF SCREENING PROGRAMS: A SYSTEMATIC LITERATURE REVIEW

出版社

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1017/S0266462312000141

关键词

Screening; HRQoL (health-related quality of life); QALY (quality-adjusted life-years); Systematic review

资金

  1. MSD
  2. Merck
  3. Eli-Lilly
  4. Pfizer
  5. Novartis
  6. electronic version of the 15D

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives: The aim of this study was to identify and characterize studies that have used quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) based on measurements of patients' health-related quality of life (HRQoL) as an indicator of effectiveness of screening programs. Methods: Systematic search of the literature until March 2010, using several electronic databases. Initial screening of articles based on abstracts, and evaluation of full-text articles were done by at least two of the authors. Results: The search identified 1,610 articles. Based on review of abstracts, 431 full-text articles were obtained for closer inspection and, of these, 81 reported QALYs based on patient-derived data using a valid HRQoL assessment. The most frequently used method to assess HRQoL was Time Trade-Off (55 percent) followed by EQ-5D (26 percent). The most frequently studied medical conditions were malignant diseases (23 percent) followed by cardiovascular diseases (19 percent). All studies employed some kind of modeling with the Markov model being the most prevalent type (65 percent). Majority of the articles (59 percent) concluded that the screening program studied was cost-effective. Conclusions: The use of QALYs in the evaluation of screening programs has expanded during the last few years. However, only a minority of studies have used HRQoL data derived from patients, using direct or indirect valuation. Further investigation and harmonization of the methodology in evaluation of screening programs is needed to ensure better comparability across different screening programs.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据