Review of Pharmacoeconomic Studies in Russian Cancer Research: An Outside View

Sandjar Djalalov, Dilfuza Djalalova, Murray Krahn, Nikolai Matveev, Jeffrey S Hoch

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Background: There is an increasing number of Russian economic evaluation studies in oncology, the scope and quality of which are unknown. Objectives: This study aimed to assess the scope and quality of economic evaluations in oncology, with the goal of elucidating implications for improving their use in Russia. Methods: Online databases were searched for oncologic economic evaluations written in Russian. Data were extracted and assessed with the Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES) instrument. In addition, the QHES was modified to overcome double-barreled items in a single criterion. Results: Of 29 articles identified, 15 met study criteria and were included in the review. Most studies analyzed cost-effectiveness of first- and second-line therapies for lung and kidney cancer. The others analyzed prostate, breast, and colorectal cancers and lymphoma. The QHES mean quality score for the reviewed studies was 74 (and 69 with the modified tool). Comparison of the quality of different study types revealed that cost utility studies and studies that used decision trees and Markov models had the highest mean quality score. Clear statements regarding bias, study limitations, uncertainty, study perspectives, and funding source were commonly absent in the reviewed studies. Conclusion: Our review indicates that oncologic economic evaluations published in Russian are limited in scope and number. In addition, they demonstrate opportunities for improvement in several important technical areas.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)138-144
Number of pages7
JournalValue in Health Regional Issues
Volume19
DOIs
StatePublished - Sep 1 2019

Fingerprint

Pharmaceutical Economics
Cost-Benefit Analysis
Research
Economics
Neoplasms
Health
Decision Trees
Kidney Neoplasms
Russia
Uncertainty
Colorectal Neoplasms
Lymphoma
Lung Neoplasms
Prostatic Neoplasms
Pharmacoeconomics
Cancer
Databases
Breast Neoplasms
Costs and Cost Analysis
Economic evaluation

Keywords

  • economic evaluations
  • oncology
  • QHES score
  • quality assessment

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Economics, Econometrics and Finance (miscellaneous)
  • Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics (miscellaneous)
  • Health Policy

Cite this

Review of Pharmacoeconomic Studies in Russian Cancer Research : An Outside View. / Djalalov, Sandjar; Djalalova, Dilfuza; Krahn, Murray; Matveev, Nikolai; Hoch, Jeffrey S.

In: Value in Health Regional Issues, Vol. 19, 01.09.2019, p. 138-144.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Djalalov, Sandjar ; Djalalova, Dilfuza ; Krahn, Murray ; Matveev, Nikolai ; Hoch, Jeffrey S. / Review of Pharmacoeconomic Studies in Russian Cancer Research : An Outside View. In: Value in Health Regional Issues. 2019 ; Vol. 19. pp. 138-144.
@article{0f50a15c5c8f43d8bfd2bd4d67c2180e,
title = "Review of Pharmacoeconomic Studies in Russian Cancer Research: An Outside View",
abstract = "Background: There is an increasing number of Russian economic evaluation studies in oncology, the scope and quality of which are unknown. Objectives: This study aimed to assess the scope and quality of economic evaluations in oncology, with the goal of elucidating implications for improving their use in Russia. Methods: Online databases were searched for oncologic economic evaluations written in Russian. Data were extracted and assessed with the Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES) instrument. In addition, the QHES was modified to overcome double-barreled items in a single criterion. Results: Of 29 articles identified, 15 met study criteria and were included in the review. Most studies analyzed cost-effectiveness of first- and second-line therapies for lung and kidney cancer. The others analyzed prostate, breast, and colorectal cancers and lymphoma. The QHES mean quality score for the reviewed studies was 74 (and 69 with the modified tool). Comparison of the quality of different study types revealed that cost utility studies and studies that used decision trees and Markov models had the highest mean quality score. Clear statements regarding bias, study limitations, uncertainty, study perspectives, and funding source were commonly absent in the reviewed studies. Conclusion: Our review indicates that oncologic economic evaluations published in Russian are limited in scope and number. In addition, they demonstrate opportunities for improvement in several important technical areas.",
keywords = "economic evaluations, oncology, QHES score, quality assessment",
author = "Sandjar Djalalov and Dilfuza Djalalova and Murray Krahn and Nikolai Matveev and Hoch, {Jeffrey S}",
year = "2019",
month = "9",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.vhri.2019.04.008",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "19",
pages = "138--144",
journal = "Value in Health Regional Issues",
issn = "2212-1099",
publisher = "Elsevier USA",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Review of Pharmacoeconomic Studies in Russian Cancer Research

T2 - An Outside View

AU - Djalalov, Sandjar

AU - Djalalova, Dilfuza

AU - Krahn, Murray

AU - Matveev, Nikolai

AU - Hoch, Jeffrey S

PY - 2019/9/1

Y1 - 2019/9/1

N2 - Background: There is an increasing number of Russian economic evaluation studies in oncology, the scope and quality of which are unknown. Objectives: This study aimed to assess the scope and quality of economic evaluations in oncology, with the goal of elucidating implications for improving their use in Russia. Methods: Online databases were searched for oncologic economic evaluations written in Russian. Data were extracted and assessed with the Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES) instrument. In addition, the QHES was modified to overcome double-barreled items in a single criterion. Results: Of 29 articles identified, 15 met study criteria and were included in the review. Most studies analyzed cost-effectiveness of first- and second-line therapies for lung and kidney cancer. The others analyzed prostate, breast, and colorectal cancers and lymphoma. The QHES mean quality score for the reviewed studies was 74 (and 69 with the modified tool). Comparison of the quality of different study types revealed that cost utility studies and studies that used decision trees and Markov models had the highest mean quality score. Clear statements regarding bias, study limitations, uncertainty, study perspectives, and funding source were commonly absent in the reviewed studies. Conclusion: Our review indicates that oncologic economic evaluations published in Russian are limited in scope and number. In addition, they demonstrate opportunities for improvement in several important technical areas.

AB - Background: There is an increasing number of Russian economic evaluation studies in oncology, the scope and quality of which are unknown. Objectives: This study aimed to assess the scope and quality of economic evaluations in oncology, with the goal of elucidating implications for improving their use in Russia. Methods: Online databases were searched for oncologic economic evaluations written in Russian. Data were extracted and assessed with the Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES) instrument. In addition, the QHES was modified to overcome double-barreled items in a single criterion. Results: Of 29 articles identified, 15 met study criteria and were included in the review. Most studies analyzed cost-effectiveness of first- and second-line therapies for lung and kidney cancer. The others analyzed prostate, breast, and colorectal cancers and lymphoma. The QHES mean quality score for the reviewed studies was 74 (and 69 with the modified tool). Comparison of the quality of different study types revealed that cost utility studies and studies that used decision trees and Markov models had the highest mean quality score. Clear statements regarding bias, study limitations, uncertainty, study perspectives, and funding source were commonly absent in the reviewed studies. Conclusion: Our review indicates that oncologic economic evaluations published in Russian are limited in scope and number. In addition, they demonstrate opportunities for improvement in several important technical areas.

KW - economic evaluations

KW - oncology

KW - QHES score

KW - quality assessment

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85071289105&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85071289105&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.vhri.2019.04.008

DO - 10.1016/j.vhri.2019.04.008

M3 - Article

C2 - 31472421

AN - SCOPUS:85071289105

VL - 19

SP - 138

EP - 144

JO - Value in Health Regional Issues

JF - Value in Health Regional Issues

SN - 2212-1099

ER -