Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 20 de 40
Filtrar
1.
BMJ Open ; 10(2): e034463, 2020 Feb 13.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32060160

RESUMO

INTRODUCTION: There has been a growing awareness of the need for rigorously and transparent reported health research, to ensure the reproducibility of studies by future researchers. Health economic evaluations, the comparative analysis of alternative interventions in terms of their costs and consequences, have been promoted as an important tool to inform decision-making. The objective of this study will be to investigate the extent to which articles of economic evaluations of healthcare interventions indexed in MEDLINE incorporate research practices that promote transparency, openness and reproducibility. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is the study protocol for a cross-sectional comparative analysis. We registered the study protocol within the Open Science Framework (osf.io/gzaxr). We will evaluate a random sample of 600 cost-effectiveness analysis publications, a specific form of health economic evaluations, indexed in MEDLINE during 2012 (n=200), 2019 (n=200) and 2022 (n=200). We will include published papers written in English reporting an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio in terms of costs per life years gained, quality-adjusted life years and/or disability-adjusted life years. Screening and selection of articles will be conducted by at least two researchers. Reproducible research practices, openness and transparency in each article will be extracted using a standardised data extraction form by multiple researchers, with a 33% random sample (n=200) extracted in duplicate. Information on general, methodological and reproducibility items will be reported, stratified by year, citation of the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement and journal. Risk ratios with 95% CIs will be calculated to represent changes in reporting between 2012-2019 and 2019-2022. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Due to the nature of the proposed study, no ethical approval will be required. All data will be deposited in a cross-disciplinary public repository. It is anticipated the study findings could be relevant to a variety of audiences. Study findings will be disseminated at scientific conferences and published in peer-reviewed journals.

2.
JAMA Netw Open ; 2(6): e195313, 2019 06 05.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31173122

RESUMO

Importance: Anorexia nervosa is recognized as an important cause of morbidity in young people. However, the risk of cancer in people with anorexia nervosa remains uncertain. Objective: To evaluate the association of anorexia nervosa with the risk of developing or dying of cancer. Data Sources: MEDLINE, Scopus, Embase, and Web of Science from database inception to January 9, 2019. Study Selection: Published observational studies in humans examining the risk of cancer in people with anorexia nervosa compared with the general population or those without anorexia nervosa. Studies needed to report incidence or mortality rate ratios (RRs). Data Extraction and Synthesis: Screening, data extraction, and methodological quality assessment were performed by at least 2 researchers independently. A random-effects model was used to synthesize individual studies. Heterogeneity (I2) was assessed and 95% prediction intervals (PIs) were calculated. Main Outcomes and Measures: All cancer incidence and cancer mortality associated with anorexia nervosa. Secondary outcomes were site-specific cancer incidence and mortality. Results: Seven cohort studies published in 10 articles (42 602 participants with anorexia nervosa) were included. Anorexia nervosa was not associated with risk of developing any cancer (4 studies in women; RR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.89-1.06; P = .53; I2, 0%; 95% PI, 0.80-1.18; moderate confidence). Anorexia nervosa was associated with decreased breast cancer incidence (5 studies in women; RR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.50-0.80; P < .001; I2, 0%; 95% PI, 0.44-0.83; high confidence). Conversely, anorexia nervosa was associated with increased risk of developing lung cancer (3 studies in women; RR, 1.50; 95% CI, 1.06-2.12; P = .001; I2, 0%; 95% PI, 0.19-16.46; low confidence) and esophageal cancer (2 studies in women; RR, 6.10; 95% CI, 2.30-16.18; P < .001; I2, 0%; low confidence). Conclusions and Relevance: Among people with anorexia nervosa, risk of developing cancer did not differ compared with the general population, but a significantly reduced risk of breast cancer was observed. Understanding the mechanisms underlying these associations could have important preventive potential.

3.
Syst Rev ; 8(1): 141, 2019 06 14.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31200773

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Autism spectrum disorder (ASD) is a complex developmental disorder characterised by impaired social interaction and communication, and restrictive and repetitive behaviour. Previous systematic reviews have traditionally assessed the prevalence of ASD on global or regional context, with very few meta-analyses at the country level. The objective of this study will be to systematically evaluate published and unpublished observational studies that present prevalence and comorbidity of ASD among children, adolescent and adult population in Spain. METHODS/DESIGN: We designed and registered a study protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis of descriptive epidemiology data. Observational studies (cohort, cross-sectional) reporting the prevalence of ASD and conducted in a wide range of people (e.g. general population, outpatient and/or school settings) will be included. The primary outcome will be the prevalence of ASD. Secondary outcomes will be the prevalence of any physical or mental comorbidity in association with ASD. No limitations will be imposed on publication status, study conduct period, and language of dissemination. Comprehensive literature searches will be conducted in seven electronic databases (from January 1980 onwards), including PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, Web of Science, PsycINFO, IME-Spanish Medical Index and IBECS-Spanish Bibliographic Index of Health Sciences. Grey literature will be identified through searching dissertation databases, Google Scholar and conference abstracts. Two team members will independently screen all citations, full-text articles, and abstract data. Potential conflicts will be resolved through discussion. The study methodological quality (or bias) will be appraised using an appropriate tool. If feasible, we will conduct random effects meta-analysis of observational data. Prevalence estimates will be stratified according to gender, age and geographical location. Additional analyses will be conducted to explore the potential sources of heterogeneity (e.g. methodological quality, sample size, diagnostic criteria). DISCUSSION: This systematic review and meta-analysis of observational data will identify, evaluate and integrate the epidemiological knowledge underlying the prevalence of ASD in Spain. The results of this study will be of interest to multiple audiences including patients, their families, caregivers, healthcare professional, scientists and policy makers. Results will be published in a peer-reviewed journal. Implications for future epidemiological research will be discussed. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42018090372.

4.
Gac. sanit. (Barc., Ed. impr.) ; 33(3): 255-258, mayo-jun. 2019. tab
Artigo em Espanhol | IBECS | ID: ibc-183745

RESUMO

Objetivo: Examinar el apoyo a las guías de publicación para estudios de evaluación económica, como la declaración CHEERS (Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards), por parte de las revistas biomédicas españolas. Método: Análisis transversal de las normas de autoría de las revistas biomédicas españolas incluidas en Journal Citation Reports 2017. Dos autores examinaron y extrajeron la siguiente información: mención de alguna guía de publicación, declaración CHEERS, recomendaciones del International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) e iniciativa Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research (EQUATOR). Resultados: De las 28 revistas incluidas, 23 (82,1%; intervalo de confianza del 95% [IC95%]: 63,1-93,9%) mencionaron alguna guía. Una única revista mencionó la declaración CHEERS para estudios de evaluación económica. Veinticuatro revistas (85,7%; IC95%: 67,3-96,0%) mencionaron las recomendaciones del ICMJE y 8 (28,6%; IC95%: 13,2-48,7%) la red EQUATOR. La declaración CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) para ensayos clínicos fue la guía más mencionada (n=21; 75,0%; IC95%: 55,1-89,3%). Discusión: La mayoría de las normas de autoría no incorporan información sobre cómo presentar evaluaciones económicas. Las revistas deberían apoyar el cumplimiento de las guías de publicación por parte de las personas autoras y revisoras


Objective: To examine the endorsement of reporting guidelines for economic evaluation studies, such as the CHEERS (Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards) statement, by Spanish biomedical journals. Method: Cross-sectional analysis of the instructions to authors of Spanish biomedical journals included in the Journal Citation Reports 2017. Two authors examined and extracted the following information: mention of any reporting guideline, the CHEERS statement, the recommendations of the International Committee of Medical Journal Directors (ICMJE) and the Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research (EQUATOR) network. Results: Of the 28 journals included, 23 (82.1%; 95% confidence interval [95%CI]: 63.1-93.9%) mentioned at least one reporting guideline in the instructions to authors. Only one journal mentioned the CHEERS statement for health economic evaluations. Twenty-four journals (85.7%; 95%CI: 67.3-96.0%) mentioned the ICMJE recommendations and 8 (28.6%; 95%CI: 13.2-48.7%) mentioned the EQUATOR network. The CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) statement for clinical trials was the most- mentioned reporting guideline (n=21; 75.0%; 95%CI: 55.1-89.3%). Discussion: Most of the instructions to authors do not provide guidance on how to report economic evaluations. Journals should support compliance with reporting guidelines by authors and peer-reviewers


Assuntos
Humanos , Avaliação em Saúde/métodos , Publicações Periódicas como Assunto/normas , Autoria/normas , Políticas Editoriais , Estudos Transversais , Publicações Periódicas como Assunto/estatística & dados numéricos , Avaliação de Custo-Efetividade
5.
BMJ Open ; 9(3): e022769, 2019 03 04.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30837245

RESUMO

INTRODUCTION: Transparency and completeness of health research is highly variable, with important deficiencies in the reporting of methods and results of studies. Reporting guidelines aim to improve transparency and quality of research reports, and are often developed by consortia of journal editors, peer reviewers, authors, consumers and other key stakeholders. The objective of this study will be to investigate the characteristics of scientific collaboration among developers and the citation metrics of reporting guidelines of health research. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is the study protocol for a cross-sectional analysis of completed reporting guidelines indexed in the Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research Network Library. We will search PubMed/MEDLINE and the Web of Science. Screening, selection and data abstraction will be conducted by one researcher and verified by a second researcher. Potential discrepancies will be resolved via discussion. We will include published papers of reporting guidelines written in English. Published papers will have to meet the definition of a reporting guideline related to health research (eg, a checklist, flow diagram or explicit text), with no restrictions by study design, medical specialty, disease or condition. Raw data from each included paper (including title, publication year, journal, subject category, keywords, citations, and the authors' names, author's affiliated institution and country) will be exported from the Web of Science. Descriptive analyses will be conducted (including the number of papers, citations, authors, countries, journals, keywords and main collaboration metrics). We will identify the most prolific authors, institutions, countries, journals and the most cited papers. Network analyses will be carried out to study the structure of collaborations. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: No ethical approval will be required. Findings from this study will be published in peer-reviewed journals. All data will be deposited in a cross-disciplinary public repository. It is anticipated the study findings could be relevant to a variety of audiences.

6.
Gac Sanit ; 33(3): 255-258, 2019.
Artigo em Espanhol | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30878246

RESUMO

OBJECTIVE: To examine the endorsement of reporting guidelines for economic evaluation studies, such as the CHEERS (Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards) statement, by Spanish biomedical journals. METHOD: Cross-sectional analysis of the instructions to authors of Spanish biomedical journals included in the Journal Citation Reports 2017. Two authors examined and extracted the following information: mention of any reporting guideline, the CHEERS statement, the recommendations of the International Committee of Medical Journal Directors (ICMJE) and the Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research (EQUATOR) network. RESULTS: Of the 28 journals included, 23 (82.1%; 95% confidence interval [95%CI]: 63.1-93.9%) mentioned at least one reporting guideline in the instructions to authors. Only one journal mentioned the CHEERS statement for health economic evaluations. Twenty-four journals (85.7%; 95%CI: 67.3-96.0%) mentioned the ICMJE recommendations and 8 (28.6%; 95%CI: 13.2-48.7%) mentioned the EQUATOR network. The CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) statement for clinical trials was the most- mentioned reporting guideline (n=21; 75.0%; 95%CI: 55.1-89.3%). DISCUSSION: Most of the instructions to authors do not provide guidance on how to report economic evaluations. Journals should support compliance with reporting guidelines by authors and peer-reviewers.


Assuntos
Análise Custo-Benefício , Guias como Assunto , Publicações Periódicas como Assunto , Editoração/normas , Editoração/estatística & dados numéricos , Espanha
7.
Syst Rev ; 8(1): 49, 2019 02 11.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30744675

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is a childhood-onset disorder characterized by a persistent pattern of symptoms of developmentally inappropriate and impaired inattention and/or hyperactivity/impulsivity, with difficulties often continuing into adulthood. ADHD can come with other comorbid conditions. The aim of this study will be to quantify the prevalence and comorbidity of ADHD among children, adolescent, and adult population in Spain. METHODS/DESIGN: We designed and registered a study protocol for an update and expansion of a systematic review and meta-analysis of pooled prevalence data. We will include cross-sectional observational studies reporting prevalence of ADHD in Spain and conducted in the general population, outpatient, and/or school settings. The primary outcome will be the prevalence of ADHD. Secondary outcomes will be the prevalence of any physical or mental comorbidity in association with ADHD. No limitations will be imposed on publication status, study conduct period, and language of dissemination. Comprehensive literature searches will be conducted in multiple electronic databases, including PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, Web of Science, PsycINFO, IME - Spanish Medical Index, and IBECS - Spanish Bibliographic Index of Health Sciences. We will also search Google Scholar, dissertation databases, and conference abstracts. Two team members will independently screen all citations, full-text articles, and abstract data. Potential conflicts will be resolved through discussion. The methodological quality (or risk of bias) of individual studies will be appraised using an appropriate tool. If feasible, we will conduct random effects meta-analysis. Prevalence estimates will be stratified according to gender, age, and geographical location. Additional analyses will be conducted to explore the potential sources of heterogeneity (e.g., methodological quality, sample size, diagnostic criteria). DISCUSSION: This systematic review and meta-analysis of observational data will provide an updated synthesis of the prevalence and comorbidity of ADHD in Spain. This study will also examine factors that may explain potential variations in prevalence data. The findings of this study will be published in a peer-reviewed journal. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42018106082 .

10.
Syst Rev ; 6(1): 189, 2017 09 15.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-28915839

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) are childhood onset neurodevelopmental disorders that may persist into adulthood. ASD and ADHD tend to run in families and may have a significant negative impact on the health and longevity of those with the disorder and their relatives. The aim of this study will be to analyze the risk of mortality among children, adolescents, and adults with ASD or ADHD and their first-degree relatives. METHODS/DESIGN: We will conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies. Searches of PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, SCOPUS, and ISI Web of Science will be used to identify epidemiological studies. Eligible studies will be observational studies reporting study-specific data for all-cause mortality or cause-specific mortality in children, adolescents, or adults with ASD or ADHD and/or their first-degree relatives. Cohort studies and case-control studies will be included. The primary outcome will be all-cause mortality. The secondary outcome will be cause-specific mortality. Two reviewers will independently screen references identified by the literature search, as well as potentially relevant full-text articles. Data will be abstracted, and study risk of bias/methodological quality will be appraised by two reviewers independently. The methodological quality of epidemiological studies will be appraised using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). Conflicts at all levels of screening and abstraction will be resolved through discussion. Random-effects meta-analyses of primary studies will be conducted where appropriate. Subgroup analyses for exploring statistical heterogeneity, if feasible, will include gender, age group, ethnicity, comorbidities, classification of cause of death, and relevant study characteristics. DISCUSSION: Our study will establish the extent of the epidemiological evidence underlying the risk of mortality among children, adolescents, and adults with ASD or ADHD and their first-degree relatives. We anticipate that our findings will be of interest to patients, their families, caregivers, healthcare professionals, scientists, and policy makers. Implications for future epidemiological research will be discussed. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42017059955 .


Assuntos
Transtorno do Deficit de Atenção com Hiperatividade , Transtorno do Espectro Autista , Causas de Morte , Família , Adolescente , Adulto , Criança , Feminino , Humanos , Masculino , Projetos de Pesquisa , Risco , Revisão Sistemática como Assunto
11.
Syst Rev ; 6(1): 137, 2017 07 11.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-28693568

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Anorexia nervosa is characterized by a severe restriction of caloric intake, low body weight, fear of gaining weight or of becoming fat, and disturbance of body image. Pathogenesis of the disorder may include genetic predisposition, hormonal changes and a combination of environmental, psychosocial, and cultural factors. Cancer is the second leading cause of death worldwide. At present, no systematic reviews and meta-analyses have evaluated the risk of cancer in people with anorexia nervosa. The objective of this study will be to evaluate the association between anorexia nervosa and the risk of developing or dying from cancer. METHODS/DESIGN: This study protocol is part of a systematic collection and assessment of multiple systematic reviews and meta-analyses (umbrella review) evaluating the association of cancer and multiple central nervous system disorders. We designed a specific protocol for a new systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies of anorexia nervosa with risk of developing or dying from any cancer. Data sources will be PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, and manual screening of references. Observational studies (case-control and cohort) in humans that examined the association between anorexia nervosa and risk of developing or dying from cancer will be sought. The primary outcomes will be cancer incidence and cancer mortality in association with anorexia nervosa. Secondary outcomes will be site-specific cancer incidence and mortality, respectively. Screening of abstracts and full texts, and data abstraction will be performed by two team members independently. Conflicts at all levels of screening and abstraction will be resolved through discussion. The quality of studies will be assessed by using the Ottawa-Newcastle scale by two team members independently. Random effects models will be conducted where appropriate. Subgroup and additional analyses will be conducted to explore the potential sources of heterogeneity. The World Cancer Research Fund (WCRF)/American Institute for Cancer Research (AICR) criteria and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach will be used for determining the quality of evidence for cancer outcomes. DISCUSSION: Findings from this systematic review will inform an ongoing umbrella review on cancer and central nervous system disorders. Our systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies will establish the extent of the epidemiological evidence underlying the association between anorexia nervosa and cancer. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42017067462.


Assuntos
Anorexia Nervosa/complicações , Neoplasias , Humanos , Incidência , Neoplasias/epidemiologia , Neoplasias/mortalidade , Revisão Sistemática como Assunto
12.
PLoS One ; 12(7): e0180355, 2017.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-28700715

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is one of the most commonly diagnosed psychiatric disorders in childhood. A wide variety of treatments have been used for the management of ADHD. We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of pharmacological, psychological and complementary and alternative medicine interventions for the treatment of ADHD in children and adolescents. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We performed a systematic review with network meta-analyses. Randomised controlled trials (≥ 3 weeks follow-up) were identified from published and unpublished sources through searches in PubMed and the Cochrane Library (up to April 7, 2016). Interventions of interest were pharmacological (stimulants, non-stimulants, antidepressants, antipsychotics, and other unlicensed drugs), psychological (behavioural, cognitive training and neurofeedback) and complementary and alternative medicine (dietary therapy, fatty acids, amino acids, minerals, herbal therapy, homeopathy, and physical activity). The primary outcomes were efficacy (treatment response) and acceptability (all-cause discontinuation). Secondary outcomes included discontinuation due to adverse events (tolerability), as well as serious adverse events and specific adverse events. Random-effects Bayesian network meta-analyses were conducted to obtain estimates as odds ratios (ORs) with 95% credibility intervals. We analysed interventions by class and individually. 190 randomised trials (52 different interventions grouped in 32 therapeutic classes) that enrolled 26114 participants with ADHD were included in complex networks. At the class level, behavioural therapy (alone or in combination with stimulants), stimulants, and non-stimulant seemed significantly more efficacious than placebo. Behavioural therapy in combination with stimulants seemed superior to stimulants or non-stimulants. Stimulants seemed superior to behavioural therapy, cognitive training and non-stimulants. Behavioural therapy, stimulants and their combination showed the best profile of acceptability. Stimulants and non-stimulants seemed well tolerated. Among medications, methylphenidate, amphetamine, atomoxetine, guanfacine and clonidine seemed significantly more efficacious than placebo. Methylphenidate and amphetamine seemed more efficacious than atomoxetine and guanfacine. Methylphenidate and clonidine seemed better accepted than placebo and atomoxetine. Most of the efficacious pharmacological treatments were associated with harms (anorexia, weight loss and insomnia), but an increased risk of serious adverse events was not observed. There is lack of evidence for cognitive training, neurofeedback, antidepressants, antipsychotics, dietary therapy, fatty acids, and other complementary and alternative medicine. Overall findings were limited by the clinical and methodological heterogeneity, small sample sizes of trials, short-term follow-up, and the absence of high-quality evidence; consequently, results should be interpreted with caution. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical differences may exist between the pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatment used for the management of ADHD. Uncertainties about therapies and the balance between benefits, costs and potential harms should be considered before starting treatment. There is an urgent need for high-quality randomised trials of the multiple treatments for ADHD in children and adolescents. PROSPERO, number CRD42014015008.


Assuntos
Transtorno do Deficit de Atenção com Hiperatividade/tratamento farmacológico , Adolescente , Transtorno do Deficit de Atenção com Hiperatividade/dietoterapia , Transtorno do Deficit de Atenção com Hiperatividade/terapia , Terapia Comportamental , Depressores do Sistema Nervoso Central/efeitos adversos , Depressores do Sistema Nervoso Central/uso terapêutico , Estimulantes do Sistema Nervoso Central/efeitos adversos , Estimulantes do Sistema Nervoso Central/uso terapêutico , Criança , Terapias Complementares/efeitos adversos , Feminino , Humanos , Masculino , Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como Assunto
13.
Aten. prim. (Barc., Ed. impr.) ; 49(6): 335-342, jun.-jul. 2017. tab, graf
Artigo em Espanhol | IBECS | ID: ibc-163874

RESUMO

Objetivo: Examinar la relación entre la fuente de financiación de los análisis coste-efectividad de intervenciones sanitarias publicados en España y las conclusiones de los estudios. Diseño: Estudio descriptivo transversal. Emplazamiento: Bases de datos de literatura científica (hasta diciembre de 2014). Participantes (unidad de análisis): Cohorte de análisis coste-efectividad de intervenciones sanitarias publicados en España entre 1989-2014 (n = 223) que presentaran como medida de resultado los años de vida ajustados por calidad (AVAC). Mediciones principales: Se establecieron relaciones entre las conclusiones cualitativas de los estudios y el tipo de fuente de financiación utilizando la prueba exacta de Fisher en tablas de contingencia. Se exploraron las distribuciones de las estimaciones de las razones coste-efectividad incremental por fuente de financiación en relación a umbrales hipotéticos de disposición a pagar entre 30.000-50.000 Euros por AVAC. Resultados: Un total de 136 (61,0%) estudios fueron financiados por la industria. Los estudios financiados por la industria eran menos propensos a presentar conclusiones desfavorables o neutrales que los estudios no financiados por la industria (2,2% frente al 23,0%; p < 0,0001), fundamentalmente en los estudios que evaluaban fármacos (0,9% frente al 21,4%; p < 0,0001). Las razones coste-efectividad incremental en los estudios financiados por la industria eran más propensas a situarse por debajo de los umbrales hipotéticos de disposición a pagar de 30.000€ (73,8% frente al 56,3%; p < 0,0001) y 50.000€ (89,4% frente al 68,2%; p < 0,0001) por AVAC. Conclusiones: El presente estudio revela un potencial sesgo de patrocinio en los análisis coste-efectividad. Los estudios financiados por la industria podrían estar favoreciendo el perfil de eficiencia de sus productos (AU)


Objective: To examine the relationship between the funding source of cost-effectiveness analyses of healthcare interventions published in Spain and study conclusions. Design: Descriptive cross-sectional study. Location: Scientific literature databases (until December 2014). Participants (analysis units): Cohort of cost-effectiveness analysis of healthcare interventions published in Spain between 1989-2014 (n = 223) presenting quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) as the outcome measure. Main measurements: The relationship between qualitative conclusions of the studies and the type of funding source were established using Fisher's exact test in contingency tables. Distributions of the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios by source of funding in relation to hypothetical willingness to pay thresholds between Euros 30,000-Euros 50,000 per QALY were explored. Results: A total of 136 (61.0%) studies were funded by industry. The industry-funded studies were less likely to report unfavorable or neutral conclusions than studies non-funded by industry (2.2% vs. 23.0%; P <.0001), largely driven by studies evaluating drugs (0.9% vs. 21.4%; P <.0001). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios in studies funded by industry were more likely to be below the hypothetical willingness to pay threshold of €30,000 (73.8% vs. 56.3%; P <.0001) and €50,000 (89.4% vs. 68.2%; P <.0001) per QALY. Conclusions: This study reveals a potential sponsorship bias in cost-effectiveness analyses of healthcare interventions. Studies funded by industry could be favoring the efficiency profile of their products (AU)


Assuntos
Humanos , Avaliação de Eficácia-Efetividade de Intervenções , Anos de Vida Ajustados por Qualidade de Vida , Viés , Assistência à Saúde/estatística & dados numéricos , Demografia , Tecnologia Biomédica/tendências , Sistemas de Financiamento da Pesquisa
16.
Syst Rev ; 6(1): 69, 2017 04 04.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-28376926

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: The objective of this study will be to synthesize the epidemiological evidence and evaluate the validity of the associations between central nervous system disorders and the risk of developing or dying from cancer. METHODS/DESIGN: We will perform an umbrella review of systematic reviews and conduct updated meta-analyses of observational studies (cohort and case-control) investigating the association between central nervous system disorders and the risk of developing or dying from any cancer or specific types of cancer. Searches involving PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, SCOPUS and Web of Science will be used to identify systematic reviews and meta-analyses of observational studies. In addition, online databases will be checked for observational studies published outside the time frames of previous reviews. Eligible central nervous system disorders will be Alzheimer's disease, anorexia nervosa, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, autism spectrum disorders, bipolar disorder, depression, Down's syndrome, epilepsy, Huntington's disease, multiple sclerosis, Parkinson's disease and schizophrenia. The primary outcomes will be cancer incidence and cancer mortality in association with a central nervous system disorder. Secondary outcome measures will be site-specific cancer incidence and mortality, respectively. Two reviewers will independently screen references identified by the literature search, as well as potentially relevant full-text articles. Data will be abstracted, and study quality/risk of bias will be appraised by two reviewers independently. Conflicts at all levels of screening and abstraction will be resolved through discussion. Random-effects meta-analyses of primary observational studies will be conducted where appropriate. Parameters for exploring statistical heterogeneity are pre-specified. The World Cancer Research Fund (WCRF)/American Institute for Cancer Research (AICR) criteria and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach will be used for determining the quality of evidence for cancer outcomes. DISCUSSION: Our study will establish the extent of the epidemiological evidence underlying the associations between central nervous system disorders and cancer and will provide a rigorous and updated synthesis of a range of important site-specific cancer outcomes. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42016052762.


Assuntos
Doenças do Sistema Nervoso Central/epidemiologia , Neoplasias/epidemiologia , Literatura de Revisão como Assunto , Humanos , Incidência , Metanálise como Assunto , Neoplasias/mortalidade , Estudos Observacionais como Assunto , Projetos de Pesquisa , Revisão Sistemática como Assunto
18.
Aten Primaria ; 49(6): 335-342, 2017.
Artigo em Espanhol | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-28062088

RESUMO

OBJECTIVE: To examine the relationship between the funding source of cost-effectiveness analyses of healthcare interventions published in Spain and study conclusions. DESIGN: Descriptive cross-sectional study. LOCATION: Scientific literature databases (until December 2014). PARTICIPANTS (ANALYSIS UNITS): Cohort of cost-effectiveness analysis of healthcare interventions published in Spain between 1989-2014 (n=223) presenting quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) as the outcome measure. MAIN MEASUREMENTS: The relationship between qualitative conclusions of the studies and the type of funding source were established using Fisher's exact test in contingency tables. Distributions of the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios by source of funding in relation to hypothetical willingness to pay thresholds between €30,000-€50,000 per QALY were explored. RESULTS: A total of 136 (61.0%) studies were funded by industry. The industry-funded studies were less likely to report unfavorable or neutral conclusions than studies non-funded by industry (2.2% vs. 23.0%; P<.0001), largely driven by studies evaluating drugs (0.9% vs. 21.4%; P<.0001). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios in studies funded by industry were more likely to be below the hypothetical willingness to pay threshold of €30,000 (73.8% vs. 56.3%; P<.0001) and €50,000 (89.4% vs. 68.2%; P<.0001) per QALY. CONCLUSIONS: This study reveals a potential sponsorship bias in cost-effectiveness analyses of healthcare interventions. Studies funded by industry could be favoring the efficiency profile of their products.


Assuntos
Análise Custo-Benefício , Assistência à Saúde/economia , Viés , Estudos Transversais , Humanos , Espanha
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA