Cited by 22Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of LifeMeta-analysis and systematic reviewsBreast Cancer Treatment Studies

A systematic review of health economic evaluation in adjuvant breast radiotherapy: Quality counted by numbers

Monten, Chris, Veldeman, Liv, Verhaeghe, Nick, Lievens, Yolande·2017·Radiotherapy and Oncology

Abstract

Background Evolving practice in adjuvant breast radiotherapy inevitably impacts healthcare budgets. This is reflected in a rise of health economic evaluations (HEE) in this domain. The available HEE literature was analysed qualitatively and quantitatively, using available instruments.Methods HEEs published between 1/1/2000 and 31/10/2016 were retrieved through a systematic search in Medline, Cochrane and Embase. A quality-assessment using CHEERS (Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards) was translated into a quantitative score and compared with Tufts Medical Centre CEA registry and Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES) results.Results Twenty cost-effectiveness analyses (CEA) and thirteen cost comparisons (CC) were analysed. In qualitative evaluation, valuation or justification of data sources, population heterogeneity and discussion on generalizability, in addition to declaration on funding, were often absent or incomplete. After quantification, the average CHEERS-scores were 74% (CI 66.9-81.1%) and 75.6% (CI 70.7-80.5%) for CEAs and CCs respectively. CEA-scores did not differ significantly from Tufts and QHES-scores.Conclusion Quantitative CHEERS evaluation is feasible and yields comparable results to validated instruments. HEE in adjuvant breast radiotherapy is of acceptable quality, however, further efforts are needed to improve comprehensive reporting of all data, indispensable for assessing relevance, reliability and generalizability of results.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.radonc.2017.08.034

Cites

72 of 72 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Monten, C., Veldeman, L., Verhaeghe, N., & Lievens, Y.
Affiliations
  • Ghent University Hospital (BE)
  • Ghent University (BE)
Corresponding author
Monten, Chris
Venue
Radiotherapy and Oncology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2017-11
Volume
125
Issue
2
Pages
186-192
ISSN
0167-8140 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2755035165
Cited by
22
References
71
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2024: 5 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 4 · 2017: 1
FWCI
0.85
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Radiotherapy and Oncology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Ghent University Academic Bibliography (Ghent University) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Cancer Research › Breast Cancer Treatment Studies
Keywords
adjuvant breast radiotherapy, health economic evaluation, CHEERS, reporting quality, cost-effectiveness analysis, cost comparison, generalizability, funding disclosure
MeSH terms
Breast Neoplasms, Cost-Benefit Analysis, Female, Humans, Health Care Costs, Radiotherapy, Adjuvant

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review