An aggregation of instruments for critical assessments of economic evaluations
Abstract Objective: Due to an increasing number of economic evaluations, critical assessments are gaining in importance. To date, the available assessment tools possess different focuses, making their results difficult to compare. After identifying and comparing the currently applied tools, we prese...
Ausführliche Beschreibung
Gespeichert in:
| Autor*in: |
Emmert, Martin [verfasserIn] Huber, Maria [verfasserIn] Schöffski, Oliver [verfasserIn] |
|---|
| Format: |
E-Artikel |
|---|---|
| Sprache: |
Englisch |
| Erschienen: |
2011 |
|---|
| Schlagwörter: |
|---|
| Übergeordnetes Werk: |
Enthalten in: PharmacoEconomics - [S.l.] : Adis, 2003, 9(2011), 1 vom: Aug., Seite 11-30 |
|---|---|
| Übergeordnetes Werk: |
volume:9 ; year:2011 ; number:1 ; month:08 ; pages:11-30 |
| Links: |
|---|
| DOI / URN: |
10.1007/BF03320771 |
|---|
| Katalog-ID: |
SPR033639388 |
|---|
| LEADER | 01000caa a22002652 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | SPR033639388 | ||
| 003 | DE-627 | ||
| 005 | 20230519134807.0 | ||
| 007 | cr uuu---uuuuu | ||
| 008 | 201007s2011 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c | ||
| 024 | 7 | |a 10.1007/BF03320771 |2 doi | |
| 035 | |a (DE-627)SPR033639388 | ||
| 035 | |a (SPR)BF03320771-e | ||
| 040 | |a DE-627 |b ger |c DE-627 |e rakwb | ||
| 041 | |a eng | ||
| 082 | 0 | 4 | |a 610 |q ASE |
| 100 | 1 | |a Emmert, Martin |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 245 | 1 | 3 | |a An aggregation of instruments for critical assessments of economic evaluations |
| 264 | 1 | |c 2011 | |
| 336 | |a Text |b txt |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |a Computermedien |b c |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |a Online-Ressource |b cr |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 520 | |a Abstract Objective: Due to an increasing number of economic evaluations, critical assessments are gaining in importance. To date, the available assessment tools possess different focuses, making their results difficult to compare. After identifying and comparing the currently applied tools, we present an aggregated checklist which can be used as a guideline by both authors and reviewers of economic evaluations. Methods: Peer-reviewed German and English language literature was searched in Medline via PubMed (2000–2009). Study selection was limited to systematic reviews, in which a critical assessment of the included economic evaluations was conducted. Furthermore, one representative assessment tool used in a health technology assessment (HTA) report was considered. Applied assessment tools were identified and recombined. Results: 107 systematic reviews provide a critical assessment of the evaluation studies. In total, nine different assessment tools were used. The checklist of the British Medical Journal (N = 49) and criteria defined by Drummond (N = 44) have been applied most frequently, three checklists were applied only once. Our aggregated checklist contains 99 criteria; they were assigned into four categories: study design (11 criteria), data (46 criteria), analysis and interpretation (24 criteria), and results (18 criteria). An increasing number of conducted systematic reviews and critical study appraisals could be demonstrated. Conclusion: Considering the different focuses of the identified tools, applying several appraisal tools or adding specific criteria to an assessment tool may make sense. In future, our checklist can be used as a guideline for both authors and reviewers when conducting or assessing the quality of economic evaluations. Further research is needed on the validation of the instrument and the classification of the assessment results. | ||
| 650 | 4 | |a Health Technology Assessment |7 (dpeaa)DE-He213 | |
| 650 | 4 | |a German Research Article |7 (dpeaa)DE-He213 | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Included Economic Evaluation |7 (dpeaa)DE-He213 | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Eine Aggregation |7 (dpeaa)DE-He213 | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Huber, Maria |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Schöffski, Oliver |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 773 | 0 | 8 | |i Enthalten in |t PharmacoEconomics |d [S.l.] : Adis, 2003 |g 9(2011), 1 vom: Aug., Seite 11-30 |w (DE-627)689715714 |w (DE-600)2657342-8 |x 1868-677X |7 nnns |
| 773 | 1 | 8 | |g volume:9 |g year:2011 |g number:1 |g month:08 |g pages:11-30 |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF03320771 |z lizenzpflichtig |3 Volltext |
| 912 | |a GBV_USEFLAG_A | ||
| 912 | |a SYSFLAG_A | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_SPRINGER | ||
| 912 | |a SSG-OLC-PHA | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_702 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2190 | ||
| 951 | |a AR | ||
| 952 | |d 9 |j 2011 |e 1 |c 08 |h 11-30 | ||
| author_variant |
m e me m h mh o s os |
|---|---|
| matchkey_str |
article:1868677X:2011----::ngrgtooisrmnsociiaassmnsf |
| hierarchy_sort_str |
2011 |
| publishDate |
2011 |
| allfields |
10.1007/BF03320771 doi (DE-627)SPR033639388 (SPR)BF03320771-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 610 ASE Emmert, Martin verfasserin aut An aggregation of instruments for critical assessments of economic evaluations 2011 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Abstract Objective: Due to an increasing number of economic evaluations, critical assessments are gaining in importance. To date, the available assessment tools possess different focuses, making their results difficult to compare. After identifying and comparing the currently applied tools, we present an aggregated checklist which can be used as a guideline by both authors and reviewers of economic evaluations. Methods: Peer-reviewed German and English language literature was searched in Medline via PubMed (2000–2009). Study selection was limited to systematic reviews, in which a critical assessment of the included economic evaluations was conducted. Furthermore, one representative assessment tool used in a health technology assessment (HTA) report was considered. Applied assessment tools were identified and recombined. Results: 107 systematic reviews provide a critical assessment of the evaluation studies. In total, nine different assessment tools were used. The checklist of the British Medical Journal (N = 49) and criteria defined by Drummond (N = 44) have been applied most frequently, three checklists were applied only once. Our aggregated checklist contains 99 criteria; they were assigned into four categories: study design (11 criteria), data (46 criteria), analysis and interpretation (24 criteria), and results (18 criteria). An increasing number of conducted systematic reviews and critical study appraisals could be demonstrated. Conclusion: Considering the different focuses of the identified tools, applying several appraisal tools or adding specific criteria to an assessment tool may make sense. In future, our checklist can be used as a guideline for both authors and reviewers when conducting or assessing the quality of economic evaluations. Further research is needed on the validation of the instrument and the classification of the assessment results. Health Technology Assessment (dpeaa)DE-He213 German Research Article (dpeaa)DE-He213 Included Economic Evaluation (dpeaa)DE-He213 Eine Aggregation (dpeaa)DE-He213 Huber, Maria verfasserin aut Schöffski, Oliver verfasserin aut Enthalten in PharmacoEconomics [S.l.] : Adis, 2003 9(2011), 1 vom: Aug., Seite 11-30 (DE-627)689715714 (DE-600)2657342-8 1868-677X nnns volume:9 year:2011 number:1 month:08 pages:11-30 https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF03320771 lizenzpflichtig Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_702 GBV_ILN_2190 AR 9 2011 1 08 11-30 |
| spelling |
10.1007/BF03320771 doi (DE-627)SPR033639388 (SPR)BF03320771-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 610 ASE Emmert, Martin verfasserin aut An aggregation of instruments for critical assessments of economic evaluations 2011 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Abstract Objective: Due to an increasing number of economic evaluations, critical assessments are gaining in importance. To date, the available assessment tools possess different focuses, making their results difficult to compare. After identifying and comparing the currently applied tools, we present an aggregated checklist which can be used as a guideline by both authors and reviewers of economic evaluations. Methods: Peer-reviewed German and English language literature was searched in Medline via PubMed (2000–2009). Study selection was limited to systematic reviews, in which a critical assessment of the included economic evaluations was conducted. Furthermore, one representative assessment tool used in a health technology assessment (HTA) report was considered. Applied assessment tools were identified and recombined. Results: 107 systematic reviews provide a critical assessment of the evaluation studies. In total, nine different assessment tools were used. The checklist of the British Medical Journal (N = 49) and criteria defined by Drummond (N = 44) have been applied most frequently, three checklists were applied only once. Our aggregated checklist contains 99 criteria; they were assigned into four categories: study design (11 criteria), data (46 criteria), analysis and interpretation (24 criteria), and results (18 criteria). An increasing number of conducted systematic reviews and critical study appraisals could be demonstrated. Conclusion: Considering the different focuses of the identified tools, applying several appraisal tools or adding specific criteria to an assessment tool may make sense. In future, our checklist can be used as a guideline for both authors and reviewers when conducting or assessing the quality of economic evaluations. Further research is needed on the validation of the instrument and the classification of the assessment results. Health Technology Assessment (dpeaa)DE-He213 German Research Article (dpeaa)DE-He213 Included Economic Evaluation (dpeaa)DE-He213 Eine Aggregation (dpeaa)DE-He213 Huber, Maria verfasserin aut Schöffski, Oliver verfasserin aut Enthalten in PharmacoEconomics [S.l.] : Adis, 2003 9(2011), 1 vom: Aug., Seite 11-30 (DE-627)689715714 (DE-600)2657342-8 1868-677X nnns volume:9 year:2011 number:1 month:08 pages:11-30 https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF03320771 lizenzpflichtig Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_702 GBV_ILN_2190 AR 9 2011 1 08 11-30 |
| allfields_unstemmed |
10.1007/BF03320771 doi (DE-627)SPR033639388 (SPR)BF03320771-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 610 ASE Emmert, Martin verfasserin aut An aggregation of instruments for critical assessments of economic evaluations 2011 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Abstract Objective: Due to an increasing number of economic evaluations, critical assessments are gaining in importance. To date, the available assessment tools possess different focuses, making their results difficult to compare. After identifying and comparing the currently applied tools, we present an aggregated checklist which can be used as a guideline by both authors and reviewers of economic evaluations. Methods: Peer-reviewed German and English language literature was searched in Medline via PubMed (2000–2009). Study selection was limited to systematic reviews, in which a critical assessment of the included economic evaluations was conducted. Furthermore, one representative assessment tool used in a health technology assessment (HTA) report was considered. Applied assessment tools were identified and recombined. Results: 107 systematic reviews provide a critical assessment of the evaluation studies. In total, nine different assessment tools were used. The checklist of the British Medical Journal (N = 49) and criteria defined by Drummond (N = 44) have been applied most frequently, three checklists were applied only once. Our aggregated checklist contains 99 criteria; they were assigned into four categories: study design (11 criteria), data (46 criteria), analysis and interpretation (24 criteria), and results (18 criteria). An increasing number of conducted systematic reviews and critical study appraisals could be demonstrated. Conclusion: Considering the different focuses of the identified tools, applying several appraisal tools or adding specific criteria to an assessment tool may make sense. In future, our checklist can be used as a guideline for both authors and reviewers when conducting or assessing the quality of economic evaluations. Further research is needed on the validation of the instrument and the classification of the assessment results. Health Technology Assessment (dpeaa)DE-He213 German Research Article (dpeaa)DE-He213 Included Economic Evaluation (dpeaa)DE-He213 Eine Aggregation (dpeaa)DE-He213 Huber, Maria verfasserin aut Schöffski, Oliver verfasserin aut Enthalten in PharmacoEconomics [S.l.] : Adis, 2003 9(2011), 1 vom: Aug., Seite 11-30 (DE-627)689715714 (DE-600)2657342-8 1868-677X nnns volume:9 year:2011 number:1 month:08 pages:11-30 https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF03320771 lizenzpflichtig Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_702 GBV_ILN_2190 AR 9 2011 1 08 11-30 |
| allfieldsGer |
10.1007/BF03320771 doi (DE-627)SPR033639388 (SPR)BF03320771-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 610 ASE Emmert, Martin verfasserin aut An aggregation of instruments for critical assessments of economic evaluations 2011 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Abstract Objective: Due to an increasing number of economic evaluations, critical assessments are gaining in importance. To date, the available assessment tools possess different focuses, making their results difficult to compare. After identifying and comparing the currently applied tools, we present an aggregated checklist which can be used as a guideline by both authors and reviewers of economic evaluations. Methods: Peer-reviewed German and English language literature was searched in Medline via PubMed (2000–2009). Study selection was limited to systematic reviews, in which a critical assessment of the included economic evaluations was conducted. Furthermore, one representative assessment tool used in a health technology assessment (HTA) report was considered. Applied assessment tools were identified and recombined. Results: 107 systematic reviews provide a critical assessment of the evaluation studies. In total, nine different assessment tools were used. The checklist of the British Medical Journal (N = 49) and criteria defined by Drummond (N = 44) have been applied most frequently, three checklists were applied only once. Our aggregated checklist contains 99 criteria; they were assigned into four categories: study design (11 criteria), data (46 criteria), analysis and interpretation (24 criteria), and results (18 criteria). An increasing number of conducted systematic reviews and critical study appraisals could be demonstrated. Conclusion: Considering the different focuses of the identified tools, applying several appraisal tools or adding specific criteria to an assessment tool may make sense. In future, our checklist can be used as a guideline for both authors and reviewers when conducting or assessing the quality of economic evaluations. Further research is needed on the validation of the instrument and the classification of the assessment results. Health Technology Assessment (dpeaa)DE-He213 German Research Article (dpeaa)DE-He213 Included Economic Evaluation (dpeaa)DE-He213 Eine Aggregation (dpeaa)DE-He213 Huber, Maria verfasserin aut Schöffski, Oliver verfasserin aut Enthalten in PharmacoEconomics [S.l.] : Adis, 2003 9(2011), 1 vom: Aug., Seite 11-30 (DE-627)689715714 (DE-600)2657342-8 1868-677X nnns volume:9 year:2011 number:1 month:08 pages:11-30 https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF03320771 lizenzpflichtig Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_702 GBV_ILN_2190 AR 9 2011 1 08 11-30 |
| allfieldsSound |
10.1007/BF03320771 doi (DE-627)SPR033639388 (SPR)BF03320771-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 610 ASE Emmert, Martin verfasserin aut An aggregation of instruments for critical assessments of economic evaluations 2011 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Abstract Objective: Due to an increasing number of economic evaluations, critical assessments are gaining in importance. To date, the available assessment tools possess different focuses, making their results difficult to compare. After identifying and comparing the currently applied tools, we present an aggregated checklist which can be used as a guideline by both authors and reviewers of economic evaluations. Methods: Peer-reviewed German and English language literature was searched in Medline via PubMed (2000–2009). Study selection was limited to systematic reviews, in which a critical assessment of the included economic evaluations was conducted. Furthermore, one representative assessment tool used in a health technology assessment (HTA) report was considered. Applied assessment tools were identified and recombined. Results: 107 systematic reviews provide a critical assessment of the evaluation studies. In total, nine different assessment tools were used. The checklist of the British Medical Journal (N = 49) and criteria defined by Drummond (N = 44) have been applied most frequently, three checklists were applied only once. Our aggregated checklist contains 99 criteria; they were assigned into four categories: study design (11 criteria), data (46 criteria), analysis and interpretation (24 criteria), and results (18 criteria). An increasing number of conducted systematic reviews and critical study appraisals could be demonstrated. Conclusion: Considering the different focuses of the identified tools, applying several appraisal tools or adding specific criteria to an assessment tool may make sense. In future, our checklist can be used as a guideline for both authors and reviewers when conducting or assessing the quality of economic evaluations. Further research is needed on the validation of the instrument and the classification of the assessment results. Health Technology Assessment (dpeaa)DE-He213 German Research Article (dpeaa)DE-He213 Included Economic Evaluation (dpeaa)DE-He213 Eine Aggregation (dpeaa)DE-He213 Huber, Maria verfasserin aut Schöffski, Oliver verfasserin aut Enthalten in PharmacoEconomics [S.l.] : Adis, 2003 9(2011), 1 vom: Aug., Seite 11-30 (DE-627)689715714 (DE-600)2657342-8 1868-677X nnns volume:9 year:2011 number:1 month:08 pages:11-30 https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF03320771 lizenzpflichtig Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_702 GBV_ILN_2190 AR 9 2011 1 08 11-30 |
| language |
English |
| source |
Enthalten in PharmacoEconomics 9(2011), 1 vom: Aug., Seite 11-30 volume:9 year:2011 number:1 month:08 pages:11-30 |
| sourceStr |
Enthalten in PharmacoEconomics 9(2011), 1 vom: Aug., Seite 11-30 volume:9 year:2011 number:1 month:08 pages:11-30 |
| format_phy_str_mv |
Article |
| institution |
findex.gbv.de |
| topic_facet |
Health Technology Assessment German Research Article Included Economic Evaluation Eine Aggregation |
| dewey-raw |
610 |
| isfreeaccess_bool |
false |
| container_title |
PharmacoEconomics |
| authorswithroles_txt_mv |
Emmert, Martin @@aut@@ Huber, Maria @@aut@@ Schöffski, Oliver @@aut@@ |
| publishDateDaySort_date |
2011-08-01T00:00:00Z |
| hierarchy_top_id |
689715714 |
| dewey-sort |
3610 |
| id |
SPR033639388 |
| language_de |
englisch |
| fullrecord |
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">SPR033639388</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230519134807.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">201007s2011 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1007/BF03320771</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)SPR033639388</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(SPR)BF03320771-e</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="082" ind1="0" ind2="4"><subfield code="a">610</subfield><subfield code="q">ASE</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Emmert, Martin</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="3"><subfield code="a">An aggregation of instruments for critical assessments of economic evaluations</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2011</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Abstract Objective: Due to an increasing number of economic evaluations, critical assessments are gaining in importance. To date, the available assessment tools possess different focuses, making their results difficult to compare. After identifying and comparing the currently applied tools, we present an aggregated checklist which can be used as a guideline by both authors and reviewers of economic evaluations. Methods: Peer-reviewed German and English language literature was searched in Medline via PubMed (2000–2009). Study selection was limited to systematic reviews, in which a critical assessment of the included economic evaluations was conducted. Furthermore, one representative assessment tool used in a health technology assessment (HTA) report was considered. Applied assessment tools were identified and recombined. Results: 107 systematic reviews provide a critical assessment of the evaluation studies. In total, nine different assessment tools were used. The checklist of the British Medical Journal (N = 49) and criteria defined by Drummond (N = 44) have been applied most frequently, three checklists were applied only once. Our aggregated checklist contains 99 criteria; they were assigned into four categories: study design (11 criteria), data (46 criteria), analysis and interpretation (24 criteria), and results (18 criteria). An increasing number of conducted systematic reviews and critical study appraisals could be demonstrated. Conclusion: Considering the different focuses of the identified tools, applying several appraisal tools or adding specific criteria to an assessment tool may make sense. In future, our checklist can be used as a guideline for both authors and reviewers when conducting or assessing the quality of economic evaluations. Further research is needed on the validation of the instrument and the classification of the assessment results.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Health Technology Assessment</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">German Research Article</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Included Economic Evaluation</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Eine Aggregation</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Huber, Maria</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Schöffski, Oliver</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">Enthalten in</subfield><subfield code="t">PharmacoEconomics</subfield><subfield code="d">[S.l.] : Adis, 2003</subfield><subfield code="g">9(2011), 1 vom: Aug., Seite 11-30</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)689715714</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)2657342-8</subfield><subfield code="x">1868-677X</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:9</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2011</subfield><subfield code="g">number:1</subfield><subfield code="g">month:08</subfield><subfield code="g">pages:11-30</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF03320771</subfield><subfield code="z">lizenzpflichtig</subfield><subfield code="3">Volltext</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_SPRINGER</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OLC-PHA</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_702</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2190</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">9</subfield><subfield code="j">2011</subfield><subfield code="e">1</subfield><subfield code="c">08</subfield><subfield code="h">11-30</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
|
| author |
Emmert, Martin |
| spellingShingle |
Emmert, Martin ddc 610 misc Health Technology Assessment misc German Research Article misc Included Economic Evaluation misc Eine Aggregation An aggregation of instruments for critical assessments of economic evaluations |
| authorStr |
Emmert, Martin |
| ppnlink_with_tag_str_mv |
@@773@@(DE-627)689715714 |
| format |
electronic Article |
| dewey-ones |
610 - Medicine & health |
| delete_txt_mv |
keep |
| author_role |
aut aut aut |
| collection |
springer |
| remote_str |
true |
| illustrated |
Not Illustrated |
| issn |
1868-677X |
| topic_title |
610 ASE An aggregation of instruments for critical assessments of economic evaluations Health Technology Assessment (dpeaa)DE-He213 German Research Article (dpeaa)DE-He213 Included Economic Evaluation (dpeaa)DE-He213 Eine Aggregation (dpeaa)DE-He213 |
| topic |
ddc 610 misc Health Technology Assessment misc German Research Article misc Included Economic Evaluation misc Eine Aggregation |
| topic_unstemmed |
ddc 610 misc Health Technology Assessment misc German Research Article misc Included Economic Evaluation misc Eine Aggregation |
| topic_browse |
ddc 610 misc Health Technology Assessment misc German Research Article misc Included Economic Evaluation misc Eine Aggregation |
| format_facet |
Elektronische Aufsätze Aufsätze Elektronische Ressource |
| format_main_str_mv |
Text Zeitschrift/Artikel |
| carriertype_str_mv |
cr |
| hierarchy_parent_title |
PharmacoEconomics |
| hierarchy_parent_id |
689715714 |
| dewey-tens |
610 - Medicine & health |
| hierarchy_top_title |
PharmacoEconomics |
| isfreeaccess_txt |
false |
| familylinks_str_mv |
(DE-627)689715714 (DE-600)2657342-8 |
| title |
An aggregation of instruments for critical assessments of economic evaluations |
| ctrlnum |
(DE-627)SPR033639388 (SPR)BF03320771-e |
| title_full |
An aggregation of instruments for critical assessments of economic evaluations |
| author_sort |
Emmert, Martin |
| journal |
PharmacoEconomics |
| journalStr |
PharmacoEconomics |
| lang_code |
eng |
| isOA_bool |
false |
| dewey-hundreds |
600 - Technology |
| recordtype |
marc |
| publishDateSort |
2011 |
| contenttype_str_mv |
txt |
| container_start_page |
11 |
| author_browse |
Emmert, Martin Huber, Maria Schöffski, Oliver |
| container_volume |
9 |
| class |
610 ASE |
| format_se |
Elektronische Aufsätze |
| author-letter |
Emmert, Martin |
| doi_str_mv |
10.1007/BF03320771 |
| dewey-full |
610 |
| author2-role |
verfasserin |
| title_sort |
aggregation of instruments for critical assessments of economic evaluations |
| title_auth |
An aggregation of instruments for critical assessments of economic evaluations |
| abstract |
Abstract Objective: Due to an increasing number of economic evaluations, critical assessments are gaining in importance. To date, the available assessment tools possess different focuses, making their results difficult to compare. After identifying and comparing the currently applied tools, we present an aggregated checklist which can be used as a guideline by both authors and reviewers of economic evaluations. Methods: Peer-reviewed German and English language literature was searched in Medline via PubMed (2000–2009). Study selection was limited to systematic reviews, in which a critical assessment of the included economic evaluations was conducted. Furthermore, one representative assessment tool used in a health technology assessment (HTA) report was considered. Applied assessment tools were identified and recombined. Results: 107 systematic reviews provide a critical assessment of the evaluation studies. In total, nine different assessment tools were used. The checklist of the British Medical Journal (N = 49) and criteria defined by Drummond (N = 44) have been applied most frequently, three checklists were applied only once. Our aggregated checklist contains 99 criteria; they were assigned into four categories: study design (11 criteria), data (46 criteria), analysis and interpretation (24 criteria), and results (18 criteria). An increasing number of conducted systematic reviews and critical study appraisals could be demonstrated. Conclusion: Considering the different focuses of the identified tools, applying several appraisal tools or adding specific criteria to an assessment tool may make sense. In future, our checklist can be used as a guideline for both authors and reviewers when conducting or assessing the quality of economic evaluations. Further research is needed on the validation of the instrument and the classification of the assessment results. |
| abstractGer |
Abstract Objective: Due to an increasing number of economic evaluations, critical assessments are gaining in importance. To date, the available assessment tools possess different focuses, making their results difficult to compare. After identifying and comparing the currently applied tools, we present an aggregated checklist which can be used as a guideline by both authors and reviewers of economic evaluations. Methods: Peer-reviewed German and English language literature was searched in Medline via PubMed (2000–2009). Study selection was limited to systematic reviews, in which a critical assessment of the included economic evaluations was conducted. Furthermore, one representative assessment tool used in a health technology assessment (HTA) report was considered. Applied assessment tools were identified and recombined. Results: 107 systematic reviews provide a critical assessment of the evaluation studies. In total, nine different assessment tools were used. The checklist of the British Medical Journal (N = 49) and criteria defined by Drummond (N = 44) have been applied most frequently, three checklists were applied only once. Our aggregated checklist contains 99 criteria; they were assigned into four categories: study design (11 criteria), data (46 criteria), analysis and interpretation (24 criteria), and results (18 criteria). An increasing number of conducted systematic reviews and critical study appraisals could be demonstrated. Conclusion: Considering the different focuses of the identified tools, applying several appraisal tools or adding specific criteria to an assessment tool may make sense. In future, our checklist can be used as a guideline for both authors and reviewers when conducting or assessing the quality of economic evaluations. Further research is needed on the validation of the instrument and the classification of the assessment results. |
| abstract_unstemmed |
Abstract Objective: Due to an increasing number of economic evaluations, critical assessments are gaining in importance. To date, the available assessment tools possess different focuses, making their results difficult to compare. After identifying and comparing the currently applied tools, we present an aggregated checklist which can be used as a guideline by both authors and reviewers of economic evaluations. Methods: Peer-reviewed German and English language literature was searched in Medline via PubMed (2000–2009). Study selection was limited to systematic reviews, in which a critical assessment of the included economic evaluations was conducted. Furthermore, one representative assessment tool used in a health technology assessment (HTA) report was considered. Applied assessment tools were identified and recombined. Results: 107 systematic reviews provide a critical assessment of the evaluation studies. In total, nine different assessment tools were used. The checklist of the British Medical Journal (N = 49) and criteria defined by Drummond (N = 44) have been applied most frequently, three checklists were applied only once. Our aggregated checklist contains 99 criteria; they were assigned into four categories: study design (11 criteria), data (46 criteria), analysis and interpretation (24 criteria), and results (18 criteria). An increasing number of conducted systematic reviews and critical study appraisals could be demonstrated. Conclusion: Considering the different focuses of the identified tools, applying several appraisal tools or adding specific criteria to an assessment tool may make sense. In future, our checklist can be used as a guideline for both authors and reviewers when conducting or assessing the quality of economic evaluations. Further research is needed on the validation of the instrument and the classification of the assessment results. |
| collection_details |
GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_702 GBV_ILN_2190 |
| container_issue |
1 |
| title_short |
An aggregation of instruments for critical assessments of economic evaluations |
| url |
https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF03320771 |
| remote_bool |
true |
| author2 |
Huber, Maria Schöffski, Oliver |
| author2Str |
Huber, Maria Schöffski, Oliver |
| ppnlink |
689715714 |
| mediatype_str_mv |
c |
| isOA_txt |
false |
| hochschulschrift_bool |
false |
| doi_str |
10.1007/BF03320771 |
| up_date |
2024-07-03T19:24:10.726Z |
| _version_ |
1803587053921763328 |
| fullrecord_marcxml |
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">SPR033639388</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230519134807.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">201007s2011 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1007/BF03320771</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)SPR033639388</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(SPR)BF03320771-e</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="082" ind1="0" ind2="4"><subfield code="a">610</subfield><subfield code="q">ASE</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Emmert, Martin</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="3"><subfield code="a">An aggregation of instruments for critical assessments of economic evaluations</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2011</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Abstract Objective: Due to an increasing number of economic evaluations, critical assessments are gaining in importance. To date, the available assessment tools possess different focuses, making their results difficult to compare. After identifying and comparing the currently applied tools, we present an aggregated checklist which can be used as a guideline by both authors and reviewers of economic evaluations. Methods: Peer-reviewed German and English language literature was searched in Medline via PubMed (2000–2009). Study selection was limited to systematic reviews, in which a critical assessment of the included economic evaluations was conducted. Furthermore, one representative assessment tool used in a health technology assessment (HTA) report was considered. Applied assessment tools were identified and recombined. Results: 107 systematic reviews provide a critical assessment of the evaluation studies. In total, nine different assessment tools were used. The checklist of the British Medical Journal (N = 49) and criteria defined by Drummond (N = 44) have been applied most frequently, three checklists were applied only once. Our aggregated checklist contains 99 criteria; they were assigned into four categories: study design (11 criteria), data (46 criteria), analysis and interpretation (24 criteria), and results (18 criteria). An increasing number of conducted systematic reviews and critical study appraisals could be demonstrated. Conclusion: Considering the different focuses of the identified tools, applying several appraisal tools or adding specific criteria to an assessment tool may make sense. In future, our checklist can be used as a guideline for both authors and reviewers when conducting or assessing the quality of economic evaluations. Further research is needed on the validation of the instrument and the classification of the assessment results.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Health Technology Assessment</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">German Research Article</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Included Economic Evaluation</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Eine Aggregation</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Huber, Maria</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Schöffski, Oliver</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">Enthalten in</subfield><subfield code="t">PharmacoEconomics</subfield><subfield code="d">[S.l.] : Adis, 2003</subfield><subfield code="g">9(2011), 1 vom: Aug., Seite 11-30</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)689715714</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)2657342-8</subfield><subfield code="x">1868-677X</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:9</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2011</subfield><subfield code="g">number:1</subfield><subfield code="g">month:08</subfield><subfield code="g">pages:11-30</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF03320771</subfield><subfield code="z">lizenzpflichtig</subfield><subfield code="3">Volltext</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_SPRINGER</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OLC-PHA</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_702</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2190</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">9</subfield><subfield code="j">2011</subfield><subfield code="e">1</subfield><subfield code="c">08</subfield><subfield code="h">11-30</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
|
| score |
7.3975716 |