OP380 A Review Of The Methodology Used To Synthesize Continuous And Time-To-Event Outcomes For Clinical And Cost-Effectiveness

IntroductionSynthesis of continuous and time-to-event outcomes is often complicated by the use of multiple outcome scales and heterogeneous reporting of outcomes across trials. Simple methods of evidence synthesis for clinical effectiveness can fail to account for these issues and result in a reduct...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:International journal of technology assessment in health care 2020-12, Vol.36 (S1), p.7-7
Hauptverfasser: Freeman, Suzanne, Sutton, Alex, Cooper, Nicola
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 7
container_issue S1
container_start_page 7
container_title International journal of technology assessment in health care
container_volume 36
creator Freeman, Suzanne
Sutton, Alex
Cooper, Nicola
description IntroductionSynthesis of continuous and time-to-event outcomes is often complicated by the use of multiple outcome scales and heterogeneous reporting of outcomes across trials. Simple methods of evidence synthesis for clinical effectiveness can fail to account for these issues and result in a reduction of the evidence base, which can be further reduced at the cost-effectiveness stage as common outcome measures, such as standardized mean differences, cannot easily be incorporated into the economic decision model. Recent methodological advances for synthesizing continuous and time-to-event outcomes aim to include a greater proportion of the available evidence base within a single coherent analysis.MethodsTo assess the statistical methods commonly used in health technology assessment (HTA) and establish whether recent advances in synthesis methods have been adopted in practice, we conducted a review of HTA reports and guidelines published in the United Kingdom (UK) between 1 April 2018 and 31 March 2019 reporting a quantitative meta-analysis (MA), network meta-analysis (NMA) or indirect treatment comparison (ITC) of at least one continuous or time-to-event outcome.ResultsForty-seven articles were considered eligible for this review. Fifty-one percent of eligible articles reported at least one continuous outcome and 55 percent at least one time-to-event outcome. Twenty-nine articles reported NMA or ITC and twenty-seven reported MA of a continuous or time-to-event outcome. Forty articles included a decision model, of which twenty-seven incorporated evidence from a synthesis of a continuous or time-to-event outcome with eleven informed by a single trial (despite synthesis being conducted).ConclusionsUptake of methods to include a greater proportion of the available evidence base within a single coherent analysis in UK HTA reports has been slow. Evaluating health technologies using an evidence-based approach often results in better outcomes for patients. Therefore, HTA analysts and decision modelers must be aware of the expanding literature for synthesis of continuous and time-to-event outcomes and appreciate the limitations of simpler approaches.
doi_str_mv 10.1017/S0266462320001051
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2472966630</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><cupid>10_1017_S0266462320001051</cupid><sourcerecordid>2472966630</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c1140-92e7575278b665362b7846e439a32f977c9ff625fc2bfe067aa713da939c794c3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kE1Lw0AURQdRsFZ_gLsB19H5SGYyyxJaFSoRm65DMnnTTmkzNZNU6sLfbmoLLsTVW9xz7oOL0C0l95RQ-TAjTIhQMM4IIZRE9AwNaChpIHgYn6PBIQ4O-SW68n7VM5woMkBf6SuPCR7hN9hZ-MCpwdkS8Au0S1e5tVvs8dxDhTOHZ_u6XYK3n4ATV7e27lzn8ajuQ7uBIHPBeAd1i9Ou1W4DHk9cg5O1ra0u1j9c4nwbjI0B3doeBe-v0YUp1h5uTneI5pNxljwF0_TxORlNA01pSALFQEYyYjIuhYi4YKWMQwEhVwVnRkmplTGCRUaz0gARsigk5VWhuNJShZoP0d2xd9u49w58m69c19T9y5yFkikhBCc9RY-Ubpz3DZh829hN0exzSvLDzPmfmXuHn5xiUza2WsBv9f_WN7FufOY</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2472966630</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>OP380 A Review Of The Methodology Used To Synthesize Continuous And Time-To-Event Outcomes For Clinical And Cost-Effectiveness</title><source>Cambridge University Press Journals Complete</source><creator>Freeman, Suzanne ; Sutton, Alex ; Cooper, Nicola</creator><creatorcontrib>Freeman, Suzanne ; Sutton, Alex ; Cooper, Nicola</creatorcontrib><description>IntroductionSynthesis of continuous and time-to-event outcomes is often complicated by the use of multiple outcome scales and heterogeneous reporting of outcomes across trials. Simple methods of evidence synthesis for clinical effectiveness can fail to account for these issues and result in a reduction of the evidence base, which can be further reduced at the cost-effectiveness stage as common outcome measures, such as standardized mean differences, cannot easily be incorporated into the economic decision model. Recent methodological advances for synthesizing continuous and time-to-event outcomes aim to include a greater proportion of the available evidence base within a single coherent analysis.MethodsTo assess the statistical methods commonly used in health technology assessment (HTA) and establish whether recent advances in synthesis methods have been adopted in practice, we conducted a review of HTA reports and guidelines published in the United Kingdom (UK) between 1 April 2018 and 31 March 2019 reporting a quantitative meta-analysis (MA), network meta-analysis (NMA) or indirect treatment comparison (ITC) of at least one continuous or time-to-event outcome.ResultsForty-seven articles were considered eligible for this review. Fifty-one percent of eligible articles reported at least one continuous outcome and 55 percent at least one time-to-event outcome. Twenty-nine articles reported NMA or ITC and twenty-seven reported MA of a continuous or time-to-event outcome. Forty articles included a decision model, of which twenty-seven incorporated evidence from a synthesis of a continuous or time-to-event outcome with eleven informed by a single trial (despite synthesis being conducted).ConclusionsUptake of methods to include a greater proportion of the available evidence base within a single coherent analysis in UK HTA reports has been slow. Evaluating health technologies using an evidence-based approach often results in better outcomes for patients. Therefore, HTA analysts and decision modelers must be aware of the expanding literature for synthesis of continuous and time-to-event outcomes and appreciate the limitations of simpler approaches.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0266-4623</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1471-6348</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1017/S0266462320001051</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>New York, USA: Cambridge University Press</publisher><subject>Clinical trials ; Cost analysis ; Decision analysis ; Economic models ; Oral Presentations ; Statistical methods ; Synthesis ; Technology assessment</subject><ispartof>International journal of technology assessment in health care, 2020-12, Vol.36 (S1), p.7-7</ispartof><rights>Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2020</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S0266462320001051/type/journal_article$$EHTML$$P50$$Gcambridge$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>164,314,780,784,27924,27925,55628</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Freeman, Suzanne</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sutton, Alex</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cooper, Nicola</creatorcontrib><title>OP380 A Review Of The Methodology Used To Synthesize Continuous And Time-To-Event Outcomes For Clinical And Cost-Effectiveness</title><title>International journal of technology assessment in health care</title><addtitle>Int J Technol Assess Health Care</addtitle><description>IntroductionSynthesis of continuous and time-to-event outcomes is often complicated by the use of multiple outcome scales and heterogeneous reporting of outcomes across trials. Simple methods of evidence synthesis for clinical effectiveness can fail to account for these issues and result in a reduction of the evidence base, which can be further reduced at the cost-effectiveness stage as common outcome measures, such as standardized mean differences, cannot easily be incorporated into the economic decision model. Recent methodological advances for synthesizing continuous and time-to-event outcomes aim to include a greater proportion of the available evidence base within a single coherent analysis.MethodsTo assess the statistical methods commonly used in health technology assessment (HTA) and establish whether recent advances in synthesis methods have been adopted in practice, we conducted a review of HTA reports and guidelines published in the United Kingdom (UK) between 1 April 2018 and 31 March 2019 reporting a quantitative meta-analysis (MA), network meta-analysis (NMA) or indirect treatment comparison (ITC) of at least one continuous or time-to-event outcome.ResultsForty-seven articles were considered eligible for this review. Fifty-one percent of eligible articles reported at least one continuous outcome and 55 percent at least one time-to-event outcome. Twenty-nine articles reported NMA or ITC and twenty-seven reported MA of a continuous or time-to-event outcome. Forty articles included a decision model, of which twenty-seven incorporated evidence from a synthesis of a continuous or time-to-event outcome with eleven informed by a single trial (despite synthesis being conducted).ConclusionsUptake of methods to include a greater proportion of the available evidence base within a single coherent analysis in UK HTA reports has been slow. Evaluating health technologies using an evidence-based approach often results in better outcomes for patients. Therefore, HTA analysts and decision modelers must be aware of the expanding literature for synthesis of continuous and time-to-event outcomes and appreciate the limitations of simpler approaches.</description><subject>Clinical trials</subject><subject>Cost analysis</subject><subject>Decision analysis</subject><subject>Economic models</subject><subject>Oral Presentations</subject><subject>Statistical methods</subject><subject>Synthesis</subject><subject>Technology assessment</subject><issn>0266-4623</issn><issn>1471-6348</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2020</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><recordid>eNp1kE1Lw0AURQdRsFZ_gLsB19H5SGYyyxJaFSoRm65DMnnTTmkzNZNU6sLfbmoLLsTVW9xz7oOL0C0l95RQ-TAjTIhQMM4IIZRE9AwNaChpIHgYn6PBIQ4O-SW68n7VM5woMkBf6SuPCR7hN9hZ-MCpwdkS8Au0S1e5tVvs8dxDhTOHZ_u6XYK3n4ATV7e27lzn8ajuQ7uBIHPBeAd1i9Ou1W4DHk9cg5O1ra0u1j9c4nwbjI0B3doeBe-v0YUp1h5uTneI5pNxljwF0_TxORlNA01pSALFQEYyYjIuhYi4YKWMQwEhVwVnRkmplTGCRUaz0gARsigk5VWhuNJShZoP0d2xd9u49w58m69c19T9y5yFkikhBCc9RY-Ubpz3DZh829hN0exzSvLDzPmfmXuHn5xiUza2WsBv9f_WN7FufOY</recordid><startdate>202012</startdate><enddate>202012</enddate><creator>Freeman, Suzanne</creator><creator>Sutton, Alex</creator><creator>Cooper, Nicola</creator><general>Cambridge University Press</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7T5</scope><scope>7U5</scope><scope>7WY</scope><scope>7WZ</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>87Z</scope><scope>88C</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8C1</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8FL</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BEZIV</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FRNLG</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>F~G</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>K60</scope><scope>K6~</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>L.-</scope><scope>L7M</scope><scope>M0C</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M0T</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>PQBIZ</scope><scope>PQBZA</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>Q9U</scope></search><sort><creationdate>202012</creationdate><title>OP380 A Review Of The Methodology Used To Synthesize Continuous And Time-To-Event Outcomes For Clinical And Cost-Effectiveness</title><author>Freeman, Suzanne ; Sutton, Alex ; Cooper, Nicola</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c1140-92e7575278b665362b7846e439a32f977c9ff625fc2bfe067aa713da939c794c3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2020</creationdate><topic>Clinical trials</topic><topic>Cost analysis</topic><topic>Decision analysis</topic><topic>Economic models</topic><topic>Oral Presentations</topic><topic>Statistical methods</topic><topic>Synthesis</topic><topic>Technology assessment</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Freeman, Suzanne</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sutton, Alex</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cooper, Nicola</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Immunology Abstracts</collection><collection>Solid State and Superconductivity Abstracts</collection><collection>Access via ABI/INFORM (ProQuest)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (PDF only)</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Healthcare Administration Database (Alumni)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Public Health Database</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Business Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Business Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (Corporate)</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Professional Advanced</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies Database with Aerospace</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Healthcare Administration Database</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>ProQuest One Business</collection><collection>ProQuest One Business (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><jtitle>International journal of technology assessment in health care</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Freeman, Suzanne</au><au>Sutton, Alex</au><au>Cooper, Nicola</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>OP380 A Review Of The Methodology Used To Synthesize Continuous And Time-To-Event Outcomes For Clinical And Cost-Effectiveness</atitle><jtitle>International journal of technology assessment in health care</jtitle><addtitle>Int J Technol Assess Health Care</addtitle><date>2020-12</date><risdate>2020</risdate><volume>36</volume><issue>S1</issue><spage>7</spage><epage>7</epage><pages>7-7</pages><issn>0266-4623</issn><eissn>1471-6348</eissn><abstract>IntroductionSynthesis of continuous and time-to-event outcomes is often complicated by the use of multiple outcome scales and heterogeneous reporting of outcomes across trials. Simple methods of evidence synthesis for clinical effectiveness can fail to account for these issues and result in a reduction of the evidence base, which can be further reduced at the cost-effectiveness stage as common outcome measures, such as standardized mean differences, cannot easily be incorporated into the economic decision model. Recent methodological advances for synthesizing continuous and time-to-event outcomes aim to include a greater proportion of the available evidence base within a single coherent analysis.MethodsTo assess the statistical methods commonly used in health technology assessment (HTA) and establish whether recent advances in synthesis methods have been adopted in practice, we conducted a review of HTA reports and guidelines published in the United Kingdom (UK) between 1 April 2018 and 31 March 2019 reporting a quantitative meta-analysis (MA), network meta-analysis (NMA) or indirect treatment comparison (ITC) of at least one continuous or time-to-event outcome.ResultsForty-seven articles were considered eligible for this review. Fifty-one percent of eligible articles reported at least one continuous outcome and 55 percent at least one time-to-event outcome. Twenty-nine articles reported NMA or ITC and twenty-seven reported MA of a continuous or time-to-event outcome. Forty articles included a decision model, of which twenty-seven incorporated evidence from a synthesis of a continuous or time-to-event outcome with eleven informed by a single trial (despite synthesis being conducted).ConclusionsUptake of methods to include a greater proportion of the available evidence base within a single coherent analysis in UK HTA reports has been slow. Evaluating health technologies using an evidence-based approach often results in better outcomes for patients. Therefore, HTA analysts and decision modelers must be aware of the expanding literature for synthesis of continuous and time-to-event outcomes and appreciate the limitations of simpler approaches.</abstract><cop>New York, USA</cop><pub>Cambridge University Press</pub><doi>10.1017/S0266462320001051</doi><tpages>1</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0266-4623
ispartof International journal of technology assessment in health care, 2020-12, Vol.36 (S1), p.7-7
issn 0266-4623
1471-6348
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_journals_2472966630
source Cambridge University Press Journals Complete
subjects Clinical trials
Cost analysis
Decision analysis
Economic models
Oral Presentations
Statistical methods
Synthesis
Technology assessment
title OP380 A Review Of The Methodology Used To Synthesize Continuous And Time-To-Event Outcomes For Clinical And Cost-Effectiveness
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-30T22%3A51%3A23IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=OP380%20A%20Review%20Of%20The%20Methodology%20Used%20To%20Synthesize%20Continuous%20And%20Time-To-Event%20Outcomes%20For%20Clinical%20And%20Cost-Effectiveness&rft.jtitle=International%20journal%20of%20technology%20assessment%20in%20health%20care&rft.au=Freeman,%20Suzanne&rft.date=2020-12&rft.volume=36&rft.issue=S1&rft.spage=7&rft.epage=7&rft.pages=7-7&rft.issn=0266-4623&rft.eissn=1471-6348&rft_id=info:doi/10.1017/S0266462320001051&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2472966630%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2472966630&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_cupid=10_1017_S0266462320001051&rfr_iscdi=true