PRESS Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies: 2015 Guideline Statement.

OBJECTIVE: To develop an evidence-based guideline for Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies (PRESS) for systematic reviews (SRs), health technology assessments, and other evidence syntheses. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: An SR, Web-based survey of experts, and consensus development forum were undertaken to identify checklists that evaluated or validated electronic literature search strategies and to determine which of their elements related to search quality or errors. RESULTS: Systematic review: No new search elements were identified for addition to the existing (2008-2010) PRESS 2015 Evidence-Based Checklist, and there was no evidence refuting any of its elements. Results suggested that structured PRESS could identify search errors and improve the selection of search terms. Web-based survey of experts: Most respondents felt that peer review should be undertaken after the MEDLINE search had been prepared but before it had been translated to other databases. Consensus development forum: Of the seven original PRESS elements, six were retained: translation of the research question; Boolean and proximity operators; subject headings; text word search; spelling, syntax and line numbers; and limits and filters. The seventh (skilled translation of the search strategy to additional databases) was removed, as there was consensus that this should be left to the discretion of searchers. An updated PRESS 2015 Guideline Statement was developed, which includes the following four documents: PRESS 2015 Evidence-Based Checklist, PRESS 2015 Recommendations for Librarian Practice, PRESS 2015 Implementation Strategies, and PRESS 2015 Guideline Assessment Form. CONCLUSION: The PRESS 2015 Guideline Statement should help to guide and improve the peer review of electronic literature search strategies.

Mentoring a health technology assessment initiative in Kazakhstan.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to assist in the development of a health technology assessment (HTA) program for the Ministry of Health (MOH) of the Republic of Kazakhstan METHODS: Mentoring of an initial HTA program in Kazakhstan was provided by the Canadian Society for International Health (CSIH) by means of a partnership with the Kazakhstan MOH. HTA materials, courses, and one-on-one support for the preparation of a series of initial HTA reports by MOH HTA staff were provided by a seven-member CSIH team over a 2.5-year project. RESULTS: Guidance documents on HTA and institutional strengthening were prepared in response to an extensive set of deliverables developed by the MOH and the World Bank. Introductory and train-the-trainer workshops in HTA and economic evaluation were provided for MOH staff members, experts from Kazakhstan research institutes and physicians. Five short HTA reports were successfully developed by staff in the Ministry's HTA Unit with assistance from the CSIH team. Challenges that may be relevant to other emerging HTA programs included lack of familiarity with some essential underlying concepts, organization culture, and limited time for MOH staff to do HTA work. CONCLUSIONS: The project helped to define the need for HTA and mentored MOH staff in taking the first steps to establish a program to support health policy decision making in Kazakhstan. This experience offers practical lessons for other emerging HTA programs, although these should be tailored to the specific context.

Prostaglandin analogues for ophthalmic use: a cost-effectiveness analysis.

BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to perform an economic analysis of the cost-effectiveness of prostaglandin analogues for the treatment of increased intraocular pressure (IOP). Prostaglandin analogues for ophthalmic use are more costly than alternative agents for the lowering of IOP. An important policy decision is whether to support continued open listing of these agents or to restrict them to limited use status. METHODS: The cost-effectiveness of prostaglandin analogues was assessed using a decision analytic model. Latanoprost was compared with timolol, dorzolamide, and brimonidine, and travoprost was compared with timolol separately. The effectiveness data used for this economic analysis were the number of millilitres of mercury of IOP reduction compared with baseline and the incidence of adverse events resulting in a withdrawal of the patient from the study. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the robustness of the study results. RESULTS: Compared with latanoprost, dorzolamide was not a cost-effective strategy. Compared with brimonidine, latanoprost provided a higher IOP reduction with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $16.17 (base case), but the additional IOP reduction with latanoprost was obtained at a cost higher than the average cost per millimetre of mercury reduction obtained with brimonidine. Compared with timolol, latanoprost and travoprost had a positive incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $34.48 and $39.06, respectively. INTERPRETATION: For the first-line treatment of glaucoma and elevated IOP, latanoprost is a more cost-effective strategy than dorzolamide and brimonidine. Latanoprost and travoprost are more effective than timolol but also more expensive. For those for whom timolol is not contraindicated, it would be preferable, from a cost-effectiveness standpoint, to initiate treatment with timolol and reserve the prostaglandin analogues as an alternative treatment or as add-on therapy for patients not achieving a clinical response with timolol. Better treatment compliance associated with these analogues improves their cost-effectiveness.