首页> 外文期刊>The annals of pharmacotherapy >Use of number needed to treat in cost-effectiveness analyses [Revisión de la literatura sobre el uso del número necesario para tratar (NNT) en análisis de costo-efectividad (CEA): ?Puede el NNT aumentar la relevancia de CEA para los clínicos?]
【24h】

Use of number needed to treat in cost-effectiveness analyses [Revisión de la literatura sobre el uso del número necesario para tratar (NNT) en análisis de costo-efectividad (CEA): ?Puede el NNT aumentar la relevancia de CEA para los clínicos?]

机译:在成本效益分析中使用需要治疗的数字[在成本效益分析(CEA)中使用需要治疗的数字(NNT)的文献综述:NNT是否可以提高CEA与临床医生的相关性? ]

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

OBJECTIVE: To review the use of number needed to treat (NNT) and/or number needed to harm (NNH) values to determine their relevance in helping clinicians evaluate cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs). DATA SOURCES: PubMed and EconLit were searched from 1966 to September 2012. STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION: Reviews, editorials, non-Englishlanguage articles, and articles that did not report NNT/NNH or cost-effectiveness ratios were excluded. CEA studies reporting cost per life-year gained, per qualityadjusted life-year (QALY), or other cost per effectiveness measure were included. Full texts of all included articles were reviewed for study information, including type of journal, impact factor of the journal, focus of study, data source, publication year, how NNT/NNH values were reported, and outcome measures. DATA SYNTHESIS: A total of 188 studies were initially identified, with 69 meeting our inclusion criteria. Most were published in clinician-practice-focused journals (78.3%) while 5.8% were in policy-focused journals, and 15.9% in healtheconomics- focused journals. The majority (72.4%) of the articles were published in high-impact journals (impact factor >3.0). Many articles focused on either disease treatment (40.5%) or disease prevention (40.5%). Forty-eight percent reported NNT as a part of the CEA ratio per event. Most (53.6%) articles used data from literature reviews, while 24.6% used data from randomized clinical trials, and 20.3% used data from observational studies. In addition, 10% of the studies implemented modeling to perform CEA. CONCLUSIONS: CEA studies sometimes include NNT ratios. Although it has several limitations, clinicians often use NNT for decision-making, so including NNT information alongside CEA findings may help clinicians better understand and apply CEA results. Further research is needed to assess how NNT/NNH might meaningfully be incorporated into CEA publications.
机译:目的:回顾治疗值(NNT)和/或伤害值(NNH)值的使用,以确定它们在帮助临床医生评估成本效益分析(CEA)中的相关性。数据来源:1966年至2012年9月对PubMed和EconLit进行了搜索。研究选择和数据提取:评价,社论,非英语文章以及未报告NNT / NNH或成本效益比的文章均被排除在外。 CEA研究报告了每个生命年的成本,每个质量调整生命年(QALY)的成本或其他每个有效性指标的成本。审查了所有纳入文章的全文,以获取研究信息,包括期刊类型,期刊影响因子,研究重点,数据来源,出版年份,NNT / NNH值的报告方式以及结果指标。数据综合:最初确定了188项研究,其中69项符合我们的纳入标准。大部分发表在以临床医生为重点的期刊上(78.3%),而5.8%发表在以政策为重点的期刊上,而15.9%则在以卫生经济学为重点的期刊上发表。大部分文章(72.4%)在高影响力期刊上发表(影响因子> 3.0)。许多文章集中于疾病治疗(40.5%)或疾病预防(40.5%)。每个事件中有48%的人报告NNT是CEA比率的一部分。大多数文章(53.6%)使用文献综述的数据,而24.6%的文献使用了随机临床试验的数据,20.3%的文献使用了观察性研究的数据。此外,有10%的研究实施了建模以执行CEA。结论:CEA研究有时包括NNT比率。尽管有一些局限性,但是临床医生经常使用NNT进行决策,因此将NNT信息与CEA发现一起纳入可能有助于临床医生更好地理解和应用CEA结果。需要进一步的研究来评估如何将NNT / NNH有意义地纳入CEA出版物中。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号