Dataset Information

Quality assessment of economic analyses in pediatric urology.

ABSTRACT: To describe and evaluate economic analyses or economic evaluations in pediatric urologic literature, including study types such as cost-effectiveness analysis, which are increasingly common in the medical literature.We performed a systematic literature review of the MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases (1990-2011) to identify economic analyses of pediatric urologic topics. Studies were evaluated using published quality metrics. We examined the analysis type, data sources, perspective, methodology, sensitivity analyses, and the reporting of methods, results, limitations, and conclusions.We identified 2945 nonduplicated studies, 60 of which met inclusion criteria. Economic analyses of pediatric urologic topics increased in number during the study period, from 1 study (2%) in 1990 to 7 (12%) in 2010 (P <.0001 for trend). The most common types of analyses were cost-effectiveness and cost-minimization (22 each, 37%), typically performed from the payer perspective (26 [43%]). Although 44 (73%) correctly identified the analysis type, only 21 (35%) correctly identified the study perspective. Optimal data sources were used in 7 studies (11%). Appropriate inflationary discounting was used in 17 of 53 (32%). Sensitivity analyses were not reported in 31 of 53 (58%). The descriptions of study methods were adequate in 43 studies (72%), assumptions were adequately reported in 42 (70%), and 37 (62%) adequately discussed limitations.Although economic analyses are increasing in the pediatric urologic literature, there is a need for standardization in methods and reporting. Future investigations should attempt to follow standardized reporting guidelines and should pay particular attention to reporting of methods and results, including a comprehensive discussion of limitations.

SUBMITTER: Kokorowski PJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3594685 | biostudies-literature | 2013 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundPediatric urological diseases pose serious threats to children's physical and mental health. The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in poor pediatric outcomes for cryptorchidism, hypospadias, and testicular torsion. Presently, many people tend to seek health information via social media platforms. This study aims to quantitatively assess the quality of videos as an information source for pediatric urology in mainland China.MethodsIn this cross-sectional study, a search was performed on social media platforms (Tiktok, Bilibili, and Weibo) with the search terms "cryptorchidism", "hypospadias", and "testicular torsion". The first 30 results with any search term listed by relevance were selected in each platform. Video features (duration, number of likes, comments, and shares) and video sources were collected. Each video included in the study was assessed using DISCERN, Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) Benchmark Criteria, and Hexagonal Radar Schema. A correlation analysis was performed considering video features, video source, DISCERN scores and JAMA scores.ResultsA total of 152 videos were included and analyzed. The majority of videos were from physicians (65.8%). According to the DISCERN classification, most videos were rated as "very poor" (48.0%) and "poor" (36.8%). The mean DISCERN and JAMA scores were 36.56 and 2.68, respectively. The duration of videos uploaded by physicians was the shortest (P < 0.001). The video source had no relevance to numbers of "likes", "comments", "shares", DISCERN scores, and JAMA scores (all P-values > 0.05). Other than video duration (P < 0.001), there was no statistically significant difference between groups for any of the recorded or calculated video data (all P values > 0.05). Hexagonal Radar Charts showed the severe imbalance and deficiency of video information. In general, Tiktok videos with the shortest duration received the most numbers of "likes", "comments", and "shares", whereas the overall quality of videos on Weibo was relatively high.ConclusionsDespite most of the videos on social media platforms being uploaded by medical authors, the overall quality was poor. The misleading, inaccurate and incomplete information may pose a health risk to the viewers, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic. Much effort needs to be undertaken to improve the quality of health-related videos regarding pediatric urology.

Project description:IntroductionIn the last 120 years, the field of pediatric urology has seen an exponential growth. In this time, there has not been a comprehensive review of top cited articles within the field.ObjectivesWe aim to identify and categorize the top 100 most cited peer-reviewed articles in pediatric urology using citation analysis.Study designWe searched for articles in the Web of Science™ Core Collection between 1900 and 2020 using terms specific to pediatric urology. We identified relevant pediatric urology articles and selected the top 100 most cited articles. We analysed trends over time for topics and categories and we evaluated the relatedness of these articles using citation analysis software.ResultsThe top 100 most cited articles in pediatric urology were published between 1958 and 2016 in 26 countries, across 181 institutions, and in 46 journals. The median number of citations per article was 268 (IQR 225.75-394.25). Clinical manuscripts were the most common among the top 100 cited articles (n = 64) and the most common topic was genital conditions (e.g., penile, inguinal, or testis but not including hypospadias) (n = 19; 16.5%; total citations = 6591). When using bibliometric software to analyse relatedness among the top 100 articles based on citation of one another, we identified 11 clusters of 3 or more articles which corresponded to topics like those we defined a priori (Summary Figure). We found that a greater proportion of articles describing surgical techniques were published prior to 1987 (n = 6, 38%) as compared to after 1987 (n = 11, 13%), while the proportion of basic science articles has increased.DiscussionThis is the first study to analyse the most cited articles in pediatric urology. There was a lower median citation per article and fewer prospective studies in this list compared to other urologic sub-specialties. Similar to other clinical specialties, the focus has moved from describing and comparing operative techniques to exploring mechanisms of disease. This study is limited by using a single parameter (citation rate) and a single citation database.ConclusionThe list of top 100 most cited articles in pediatric urology is an important resource for clinicians and trainees to understand the body of knowledge and trajectory of this field. It charts the evolution of the field and highlights areas of potential investigation. This objective approach to literature review can facilitate future research and education efforts.

Project description:ObjectivesWithin cost-effectiveness models, prevalence figures can inform transition probabilities. The methodological quality of studies can inform the choice of prevalence figures but no single obvious candidate tool exists for assessing quality of the observational epidemiological studies for selecting prevalence estimates. We aimed to compare different tools to assess the risk of bias of studies reporting prevalence, and develop and compare possible numerical scoring systems using these tools to set a threshold for inclusion of reports of prevalence in an economic analysis of neonatal hypoglycaemia.DesignAssessments of bias using two tools (Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Checklist for Prevalence Studies and a modified version of Risk Of Bias In Non-randomised Studies-of Interventions (ROBINS-I)) were compared for 18 studies relevant to a single setting (neonatal hypoglycaemia). Inclusions of studies for use in a decision analysis model were considered based on summary scores derived from these tools.ResultsBoth tools were considered easy to use and produced dispersed scores for each of the 40 study-outcome combinations. The modified ROBINS-I scores were more skewed than the JBI scores, particularly at higher thresholds. The studies selected for inclusion are generally the same using either tool; if 50% was used as the cut-off threshold using the Applicable Score both tools would yield the same results. However, the JBI tool is shorter and may be easier to interpret and apply to studies that do not involve a control group, while the modified ROBINS-I tool assesses more methodological detail in studies that include a control group.ConclusionBoth tools performed well for systematically assessing studies that report on outcome prevalence and provided similar discrimination between studies for risk of bias. This convergent validity supports use of both tools for the purpose of assessing risk of bias and selecting studies that report prevalence for inclusion in economic analyses.

Dataset Information

Quality assessment of economic analyses in pediatric urology.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets