Calidad en revisiones sistemáticas de evaluaciones económicas de tecnologías en salud
Vol. 27, No. 3 (2019)
- Autores:
-
Castañeda Guerrero, Carolina
De la Hoz Restrepo, Fernando
Alvis Guzmán, Nelson
- Tipo de recurso:
- Article of journal
- Fecha de publicación:
- 2019
- Institución:
- Universidad de Cartagena
- Repositorio:
- Repositorio Universidad de Cartagena
- Idioma:
- spa
- OAI Identifier:
- oai:repositorio.unicartagena.edu.co:11227/10219
- Acceso en línea:
- https://hdl.handle.net/11227/10219
https://doi.org/10.32997/2463-0470-vol.27-num.3-2019-2583
- Palabra clave:
- Tecnologías sanitarias
tecnologías en salud
revisiones sistemáticas
evaluaciones económicas
calidad
evaluación calidad
Health technologies
systematic review
economic evaluation
quality
quality assessment
- Rights
- openAccess
- License
- https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
| id |
UCART2_6f89e2dd099fac7be99ac0d9772a19e8 |
|---|---|
| oai_identifier_str |
oai:repositorio.unicartagena.edu.co:11227/10219 |
| network_acronym_str |
UCART2 |
| network_name_str |
Repositorio Universidad de Cartagena |
| repository_id_str |
|
| dc.title.es.fl_str_mv |
Calidad en revisiones sistemáticas de evaluaciones económicas de tecnologías en salud |
| title |
Calidad en revisiones sistemáticas de evaluaciones económicas de tecnologías en salud |
| spellingShingle |
Calidad en revisiones sistemáticas de evaluaciones económicas de tecnologías en salud Tecnologías sanitarias tecnologías en salud revisiones sistemáticas evaluaciones económicas calidad evaluación calidad Health technologies systematic review economic evaluation quality quality assessment |
| title_short |
Calidad en revisiones sistemáticas de evaluaciones económicas de tecnologías en salud |
| title_full |
Calidad en revisiones sistemáticas de evaluaciones económicas de tecnologías en salud |
| title_fullStr |
Calidad en revisiones sistemáticas de evaluaciones económicas de tecnologías en salud |
| title_full_unstemmed |
Calidad en revisiones sistemáticas de evaluaciones económicas de tecnologías en salud |
| title_sort |
Calidad en revisiones sistemáticas de evaluaciones económicas de tecnologías en salud |
| dc.creator.fl_str_mv |
Castañeda Guerrero, Carolina De la Hoz Restrepo, Fernando Alvis Guzmán, Nelson |
| dc.contributor.author.none.fl_str_mv |
Castañeda Guerrero, Carolina De la Hoz Restrepo, Fernando Alvis Guzmán, Nelson |
| dc.subject.none.fl_str_mv |
Tecnologías sanitarias tecnologías en salud revisiones sistemáticas evaluaciones económicas calidad evaluación calidad Health technologies systematic review economic evaluation quality quality assessment |
| topic |
Tecnologías sanitarias tecnologías en salud revisiones sistemáticas evaluaciones económicas calidad evaluación calidad Health technologies systematic review economic evaluation quality quality assessment |
| description |
Vol. 27, No. 3 (2019) |
| publishDate |
2019 |
| dc.date.issued.none.fl_str_mv |
2019 |
| dc.date.accessioned.none.fl_str_mv |
2020-07-06T02:20:02Z |
| dc.date.available.none.fl_str_mv |
2020-07-06T02:20:02Z |
| dc.type.spa.fl_str_mv |
Artículo de revista |
| dc.type.coar.fl_str_mv |
http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_2df8fbb1 |
| dc.type.version.spa.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion |
| dc.type.coarversion.spa.fl_str_mv |
http://purl.org/coar/version/c_970fb48d4fbd8a85 |
| dc.type.coar.spa.fl_str_mv |
http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501 |
| dc.type.content.spa.fl_str_mv |
Text |
| dc.type.driver.spa.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/article |
| dc.type.local.eng.fl_str_mv |
Journal article |
| format |
http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501 |
| status_str |
publishedVersion |
| dc.identifier.citation.es.fl_str_mv |
Castañeda, C., De la Hoz, F., y Alvis, N. (2019). Calidad en revisiones sistemáticas de evaluaciones económicas de tecnologías en salud. Panorama Económico, 27(3), 581-597. https://doi.org/10.32997/2463-0470-vol.27-num.3-2019-2583 |
| dc.identifier.issn.none.fl_str_mv |
0122-8900 |
| dc.identifier.uri.none.fl_str_mv |
https://hdl.handle.net/11227/10219 |
| dc.identifier.doi.es.fl_str_mv |
10.32997/2463-0470-vol.27-num.3-2019-2583 |
| dc.identifier.eissn.none.fl_str_mv |
2463-0470 |
| dc.identifier.url.es.fl_str_mv |
https://doi.org/10.32997/2463-0470-vol.27-num.3-2019-2583 |
| identifier_str_mv |
Castañeda, C., De la Hoz, F., y Alvis, N. (2019). Calidad en revisiones sistemáticas de evaluaciones económicas de tecnologías en salud. Panorama Económico, 27(3), 581-597. https://doi.org/10.32997/2463-0470-vol.27-num.3-2019-2583 0122-8900 10.32997/2463-0470-vol.27-num.3-2019-2583 2463-0470 |
| url |
https://hdl.handle.net/11227/10219 https://doi.org/10.32997/2463-0470-vol.27-num.3-2019-2583 |
| dc.language.iso.es.fl_str_mv |
spa |
| language |
spa |
| dc.relation.ispartofjournal.none.fl_str_mv |
Panorama Económico |
| dc.relation.citationendpage.none.fl_str_mv |
597 |
| dc.relation.citationissue.none.fl_str_mv |
3 |
| dc.relation.citationstartpage.none.fl_str_mv |
581 |
| dc.relation.citationvolume.none.fl_str_mv |
27 |
| dc.rights.uri.es.fl_str_mv |
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ |
| dc.rights.access.es.fl_str_mv |
openAccess |
| dc.rights.coar.spa.fl_str_mv |
http://purl.org/coar/access_right/c_abf2 |
| dc.rights.accessrights.spa.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
| rights_invalid_str_mv |
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ openAccess http://purl.org/coar/access_right/c_abf2 |
| eu_rights_str_mv |
openAccess |
| dc.format.mimetype.none.fl_str_mv |
application/pdf |
| dc.publisher.es.fl_str_mv |
Universidad de Cartagena |
| dc.source.spa.fl_str_mv |
https://revistas.unicartagena.edu.co/index.php/panoramaeconomico/article/view/2583 |
| institution |
Universidad de Cartagena |
| bitstream.url.fl_str_mv |
https://dspace7-unicartagena.metabuscador.org/bitstreams/10d56cba-70fb-4140-856c-d27542778357/download https://dspace7-unicartagena.metabuscador.org/bitstreams/a6be5262-3e1c-4ea9-a75f-e1268e42e4c1/download https://dspace7-unicartagena.metabuscador.org/bitstreams/071f135a-7ef4-4352-8a96-41e9a6f54492/download https://dspace7-unicartagena.metabuscador.org/bitstreams/2f109ccd-fadf-4efe-8b1b-b74a9f01b3f3/download |
| bitstream.checksum.fl_str_mv |
fd76f954bbf6505f054f28d201aa42f9 7b38fcee9ba3bc8639fa56f350c81be3 c030ed558f397c49bcd42c664d311743 6fdd9a4d91b150fda7c9f27e8feb53f8 |
| bitstream.checksumAlgorithm.fl_str_mv |
MD5 MD5 MD5 MD5 |
| repository.name.fl_str_mv |
Biblioteca Digital Universidad de Cartagena |
| repository.mail.fl_str_mv |
bdigital@metabiblioteca.com |
| _version_ |
1814214021128126464 |
| spelling |
Castañeda Guerrero, CarolinaDe la Hoz Restrepo, FernandoAlvis Guzmán, Nelson2020-07-06T02:20:02Z2020-07-06T02:20:02Z2019Castañeda, C., De la Hoz, F., y Alvis, N. (2019). Calidad en revisiones sistemáticas de evaluaciones económicas de tecnologías en salud. Panorama Económico, 27(3), 581-597. https://doi.org/10.32997/2463-0470-vol.27-num.3-2019-25830122-8900https://hdl.handle.net/11227/1021910.32997/2463-0470-vol.27-num.3-2019-25832463-0470https://doi.org/10.32997/2463-0470-vol.27-num.3-2019-2583Vol. 27, No. 3 (2019)La toma de decisiones en salud tanto desde el punto de vista clínico como administrativo, requiere entre otros aspectos, fundamentarse tanto en la mejor evidencia producto de investigación de las tecnologías sanitarias como en el mejor uso de los escasos recursos económicos con los que usualmente se cuenta. En el ámbito clínico, las revisiones sistemáticas de ensayos clínicos controlados y aleatorizados, aportan información valiosa al sintetizar la mejor evidencia. Por otro lado, las evaluaciones económicas de tecnologías sanitarias son útiles al proporcionar información comparada entre los costos de dicha tecnología, por unidad de desenlace de la enfermedad en términos usualmente de efectividad o de utilidad. Realizar revisiones sistemáticas de evaluaciones económicas de tecnologías sanitarias en principio podría considerarse una muy buena herramienta para toma de decisiones, sin embargo, es importante considerar que las evaluaciones económicas pueden presentar debilidades metodológicas que limitarían su calidad. Las revisiones sistemáticas de ensayos clínicos cuentan con metodologías claras para realizarlas, incluyendo la evaluación de riesgo de sesgo y calidad tanto de los estudios incluidos, como de la misma revisión. En el caso de las evaluaciones económicas aún existe heterogeneidad en la metodología y falta de estandarización en la forma de evaluar su calidad, lo cual afecta el desarrollo de revisiones sistemáticas de evaluaciones económicas. Sin embargo, en la presente revisión se identifican herramientas que pueden servir para evaluar calidad y riesgo de sesgo de evaluaciones económicas, así como también de las mismas revisiones.The decision making in the field of health both from a clinical and administrative point of view requires, among other aspects, to be based both on the best research evidence of health technologies and on the best use of the scarce economic resources with which it is usually had. In the clinical setting, systematic reviews of controlled and randomized clinical trials provide valuable information by summarizing the best evidence. On the other hand, economic evaluations of health technologies are useful in providing comparative information between the costs of said technology, per unit of outcome of the disease in terms usually of effectiveness or utility value. Conducting systematic reviews of economic evaluations of health technologies could in principle be considered a very good tool for decision making, however, it is important to consider that economic evaluations may present methodological weaknesses that would limit their quality. Systematic reviews of clinical trials have clear methodologies to perform them, including the risk assessment of bias and quality of both the included studies and the same review. In the case of economic evaluations, there is still heterogeneity in the methodology and lack of standardization in the way of evaluating its quality, which affects the development of systematic reviews of economic evaluations. However, this review identifies tools that can be used to evaluate quality and risk of bias in economic evaluations, as well as the same reviews.application/pdfspaUniversidad de CartagenaPanorama Económico597358127https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/openAccesshttp://purl.org/coar/access_right/c_abf2info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccesshttps://revistas.unicartagena.edu.co/index.php/panoramaeconomico/article/view/2583Tecnologías sanitariastecnologías en saludrevisiones sistemáticasevaluaciones económicascalidadevaluación calidadHealth technologiessystematic revieweconomic evaluationqualityquality assessmentCalidad en revisiones sistemáticas de evaluaciones económicas de tecnologías en saludArtículo de revistainfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionhttp://purl.org/coar/version/c_970fb48d4fbd8a85http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_2df8fbb1Textinfo:eu-repo/semantics/articleJournal articleAdarkwah, C. C., van Gils, P. F., Hiligsmann, M., & Evers, S. M. (2016). Risk of bias in model-based economic evaluations: the ECOBIAS checklist. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res, 16(4), 513-523. doi: 10.1586/14737167.2015.1103185Akers J, Aguiar-Ibáñez R, Baba-Akbari A, Beynon S, Booth A, Burch J, . . . Fonseca T. (2009). Systematic Reviews of Economic EvaluationsSystematic Reviews. CRD´s guidance for undertaking reviews in health care.: Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York. Retrieved from http://www.york.ac.uk/crd/SysRev/!SSL!/WebHelp/SysRev3.htmAnderson, R. (2010). Systematic reviews of economic evaluations: utility or futility? Health Econ, 19(3), 350-364. doi: 10.1002/hec.1486Atehortua, S., Ceballos, M., Gaviria, C. F., & Mejia, A. (2013). [Quality assessment of economic evaluations in health care in Colombia: a systematic review]. Biomedica, 33(4), 615-630.Atkins, D., Best, D., Briss, P. A., Eccles, M., Falck-Ytter, Y., Flottorp, S., . . . Zaza, S. (2004). Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ, 328(7454), 1490. doi: 10.1136/bmj.328.7454.1490Augustovski, F., García Martí, S., & Pichon-Riviere, A. (2013). Estándares Consolidados de Reporte de Evaluaciones Económicas Sanitarias: Versión en Español de la Lista de Comprobación CHEERS. Value in Health Regional Issues, 2(3), 338-341. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.vhri.2013.10.004Borgerson, K. (2009). Valuing evidence: bias and the evidence hierarchy of evidence-based medicine. Perspect Biol Med, 52(2), 218-233. doi: 10.1353/pbm.0.0086Briggs A, C. K., Sculper M,. (2007). Decision modelling for health economic evaluation. Oxford UK: Oxford University Press.Brouwer, W. B., Culyer, A. J., van Exel, N. J., & Rutten, F. F. (2008). Welfarism vs. extra-welfarism. J Health Econ, 27(2), 325-338. doi: 10.1016/j.jhealeco.2007.07.003Brunetti, M., Shemilt, I., Pregno, S., Vale, L., Oxman, A. D., Lord, J., . . . Schunemann, H. J. (2013). GRADE guidelines: 10. Considering resource use and rating the quality of economic evidence. J Clin Epidemiol, 66(2), 140-150. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2012.04.012Cochrane Website. Cochrane Collaboration. Retrieved Marzo 7, 2019, from https://www.cochrane.org/about-usCooper, N., Coyle, D., Abrams, K., Mugford, M., & Sutton, A. (2005). Use of evidence in decision models: an appraisal of health technology assessments in the UK since 1997. J Health Serv Res Policy, 10(4), 245-250. doi: 10.1258/135581905774414187Chaikledkaew, U., & Kittrongsiri, K. (2014). Quality assessment of health economic evaluation. J Med Assoc Thai, 97 Suppl 5, S113-118.Drummond, M., Barbieri, M., Cook, J., Glick, H. A., Lis, J., Malik, F., . . . Severens, J. (2009). Transferability of economic evaluations across jurisdictions: ISPOR Good Research Practices Task Force report. Value Health, 12(4), 409-418. doi: 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2008.00489.xDrummond, M. F., & Jefferson, T. O. (1996). Guidelines for authors and peer reviewers of economic submissions to the BMJ. The BMJ Economic Evaluation Working Party. BMJ, 313(7052), 275-283.Drummond MF, S. M., Claxton K, Stoddart GL, Torrance GW (2015). Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes. Oxford - United KingdomEunetHTA. (2015). Methods for health economic evaluations - A guideline based on current practices in Europe. Retrieved marzo 23, 2019, from https://www.eunethta.eu/wpcontent/uploads/2018/03/Methods_for_health_economic_evaluations.pdfEvers, S., Goossens, M., de Vet, H., van Tulder, M., & Ament, A. (2005). Criteria list for assessment of methodological quality of economic evaluations: Consensus on Health Economic Criteria. Int J Technol Assess Health Care, 21(2), 240-245.García Fariñas, A., García Rodríguez, J. F., Gálvez González, A. M., & Jimenez López, G. (2016). Calidad metodológica de las evaluaciones económicas completas, publicadas en revistas médicas cubanas (1999-2014). Revista Cubana de Salud Pública, 42, 183-192.Gomersall, J. S., Jadotte, Y. T., Xue, Y., Lockwood, S., Riddle, D., & Preda, A. (2014). The Systematic Review of Economic Evaluation Evidence.: The Joanna Briggs Institute Reviewers’ Manual 2014.Gomersall, J. S., Jadotte, Y. T., Xue, Y., Lockwood, S., Riddle, D., & Preda, A. (2015). Conducting systematic reviews of economic evaluations. Int J Evid Based Healthc, 13(3), 170-178. doi: 10.1097/xeb.0000000000000063Gray, A. M. C., P.M.; Wolstenholme, J.L.; Wordsworth S. (2011). Applied Methods of Cost-effectiveness Analysis in Health Care. Oxford United Kingdom: Oxford University Press.Herner, M. (2019). Perfect Top of the Evidence Hierarchy Pyramid, Maybe Not So Perfect: lessons learned by a novice researcher engaging in a meta-analysis project. BMJ Evid Based Med. doi: 10.1136/bmjebm-2018-111141Higgins, J., & Green, S. (Producer). (2011). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0. Retrieved from www.cochrane-handbook.orgHowick, J., Chalmers, L., Glasziou, P., Greenhalgh, T., Heneghan, C., Liberati, A., . . . Hodgkinson, M. (2011). The Oxford Levels of Evidence 2. Retrieved Marzo 12, 2019, from https://www.cebm.net/index.aspx?o=5653Husereau, D., Drummond, M., Petrou, S., Carswell, C., Moher, D., Greenberg, D., . . . Loder, E. (2013). Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS)-- explanation and elaboration: a report of the ISPOR Health Economic Evaluation Publication Guidelines Good Reporting Practices Task Force. Value Health, 16(2), 231-250. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2013.02.002INHATA. The International Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment. Retrieved Marzo 5, 2019, from http://www.inahta.org/ISPOR. (2018). Pharmacoeconomic Guidelines Around the World. Retrieved Marzo 18, 2019 from https://tools.ispor.org/peguidelines/Langer, A. (2012). A framework for assessing Health Economic Evaluation (HEE) quality appraisal instruments. BMC Health Serv Res, 12, 253. doi: 10.1186/1472-6963-12-253Liberati, A., Altman, D. G., Tetzlaff, J., Mulrow, C., Gotzsche, P. C., Ioannidis, J. P., . . . Moher, D. (2009). The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. Plos Med, 6(7), e1000100. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000100Luhnen, M., Prediger, B., Neugebauer, E. A. M., & Mathes, T. (2019). Systematic reviews of health economic evaluations: A structured analysis of characteristics and methods applied. doi: 10.1002/jrsm.1342Manterola, C., Asenjo-Lobos, C., & Otzen, T. (2014). [Hierarchy of evidence: levels of evidence and grades of recommendation from current use]. Rev Chilena Infectol, 31(6), 705-718. doi: 10.4067/s0716-10182014000600011Mathes, T., Walgenbach, M., Antoine, S. L., Pieper, D., & Eikermann, M. (2014). Methods for systematic reviews of health economic evaluations: a systematic review, comparison, and synthesis of method literature. Med Decis Making, 34(7), 826-840. doi: 10.1177/0272989x14526470Ng, Y. K. (2004). Welfare Economics: Towards a More complete Analysis. New York - USA: Palgrave Macmillan.Murad, M. H., Asi, N., Alsawas, M., & Alahdab, F. (2016). New evidence pyramid. 21(4), 125-127. doi: 10.1136/ebmed-2016-110401PAHO, T. V. (Producer). (2017, Marzo 20 de 2019). Webinar Transferibilidad de evaluaciones económicas. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oE1N35d5mEwPhilips, Z., Ginnelly, L., Sculpher, M., Claxton, K., Golder, S., Riemsma, R., . . . Glanville, J. (2004). Review of guidelines for good practice in decision-analytic modelling in health technology assessment. Health Technol Assess, 8(36), iii-iv, ix-xi, 1-158.Pichon-Riviere, A., Augustovski, F., Garcia Marti, S., Sullivan, S. D., & Drummond, M. (2012). Transferability of health technology assessment reports in Latin America: an exploratory survey of researchers and decision makers. Int J Technol Assess Health Care, 28(2), 180-186. doi: 10.1017/s0266462312000074Pieper, D., Koensgen, N., Breuing, J., Ge, L., & Wegewitz, U. (2018). How is AMSTAR applied by authors - a call for better reporting. BMC Med Res Methodol, 18(1), 56. doi: 10.1186/s12874-018-0520-zPollock, M., Fernandes, R. M., Becker, L. A., Featherstone, R., & Hartling, L. (2016). What guidance is available for researchers conducting overviews of reviews of healthcare interventions? A scoping review and qualitative metasummary. Syst Rev, 5(1), 190. doi: 10.1186/s13643-016-0367-5Pollock, M., Fernandes, R. M., & Hartling, L. (2017). Evaluation of AMSTAR to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews in overviews of reviews of healthcare interventions. BMC Med Res Methodol, 17(1), 48. doi: 10.1186/s12874-017-0325-5RedETSA (Producer). (2017, Marzo 18 2019). Transferibilidad de evaluaciones económicas. Retrieved from http://redetsa.org/wp/?p=3994Rehfuess, E. A., Stratil, J. M., Scheel, I. B., Portela, A., Norris, S. L., & Baltussen, R. (2019). The WHOINTEGRATE evidence to decision framework version 1.0: integrating WHO norms and values and a complexity perspective. BMJ Glob Health, 4(Suppl 1), e000844. doi: 10.1136/bmjgh-2018-000844Rezapour, A., Jafari, A., Mirmasoudi, K., & Talebianpour, H. (2017). Quality Assessment of Published Articles in Iranian Journals Related to Economic Evaluation in Health Care Programs Based on Drummond’s Checklist: A Narrative Review. Iran J Med Sci, 42(5), 427-436.Sackett, D. L., Rosenberg, W. M., Gray, J. A., Haynes, R. B., & Richardson, W. S. (1996). Evidence based medicine: what it is and what it isn’t. BMJ, 312, 71-72.Shea, B. J., Grimshaw, J. M., Wells, G. A., Boers, M., Andersson, N., Hamel, C., . . . Bouter, L. M. (2007). Development of AMSTAR: a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol, 7, 10. doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-7-10Shea, B. J., Hamel, C., Wells, G. A., Bouter, L. M., Kristjansson, E., Grimshaw, J., . . . Boers, M. (2009). AMSTAR is a reliable and valid measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol, 62(10), 1013-1020. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2008.10.009Shea, B. J., Reeves, B. C., Wells, G., Thuku, M., Hamel, C., Moran, J., . . . Henry, D. A. (2017). AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or nonrandomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both. BMJ, 358, j4008. doi: 10.1136/bmj.j4008Shemilt, I., McDaid, D., Marsh, K., Henderson, C., Bertranou, E., Mallander, J., . . . Vale, L. (2013). Issues in the incorporation of economic perspectives and evidence into Cochrane reviews. Syst Rev, 2, 83. doi: 10.1186/2046-4053-2-83SIGN, G. (2011). SIGN 50 A guideline developer’s handbook. Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network SIGN Retrieved from https://www.sign.ac.uk/assets/sign50_2011.pdfSmith, V., Devane, D., Begley, C. M., & Clarke, M. (2011). Methodology in conducting a systematic review of systematic reviews of healthcare interventions. BMC Med Res Methodol, 11(1), 15. doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-11-15Soto-Alvarez, J. (2012). Evaluación económica de medicamentos y tecnologías sanitarias: Principios, métodos y aplicaciones en política sanitaria. (S. A. U. Springer SBM Spain Ed.). Madrid, España.Tan-Torres, E., Baltusen, R., Adam, T., Hutubessy, R., Acharya, A., Evans, D., & Murray, C. J. L. (2003). Making choices in health: WHO Guide to Cost-effectiveness Analysis. from https://www.who.int/choice/publications/p_2003_generalised_cea.pdfThielen, F. W., Van Mastrigt, G., Burgers, L. T., Bramer, W. M., Majoie, H., Evers, S., & Kleijnen, J. (2016). How to prepare a systematic review of economic evaluations for clinical practice guidelines: database selection and search strategy development (part 2/3). Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res, 16(6), 705-721. doi: 10.1080/14737167.2016.1246962Thulliez, M., Angoulvant, D., Pisella, P. J., & Bejan-Angoulvant, T. (2018). Overview of Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses on Systemic Adverse Events Associated With Intravitreal Anti-Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor Medication Use. JAMA Ophthalmol, 136(5), 557-566. doi: 10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2018.0002Urrutia, G., & Bonfill, X. (2010). [PRISMA declaration: a proposal to improve the publication of systematic reviews and meta-analyses]. Med Clin (Barc), 135(11), 507-511. doi: 10.1016/j.medcli.2010.01.015van Mastrigt, G. A., Hiligsmann, M., Arts, J. J., Broos, P. H., Kleijnen, J., Evers, S. M., & Majoie, M. H. (2016). How to prepare a systematic review of economic evaluations for informing evidence-based healthcare decisions: a five-step approach (part 1/3). Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res, 16(6), 689-704. doi: 10.1080/14737167.2016.1246960Walker, D. G., Wilson, R. F., Sharma, R., Bridges, J., Niessen, L., Bass, E. B., & Frick, K. (2012). Best Practices for Conducting Economic Evaluations in Health Care: A Systematic Review of Quality Assessment Tools: The Johns Hopkins University Evidence-based Practice Center.WHO, W. H. O. (2008). WHO guide for standardization of economic evaluations of immunization programmes (V. a. B. Department of Immunization, Trans.). Geneva, Switzerland: World Health OrganizationWijnen, B., Van Mastrigt, G., Redekop, W. K., Majoie, H., De Kinderen, R., & Evers, S. (2016). How to prepare a systematic review of economic evaluations for informing evidence-based healthcare decisions: data extraction, risk of bias, and transferability (part 3/3). Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res, 16(6), 723-732. doi: 10.1080/14737167.2016.1246961PublicationORIGINALARTÍCULO 1_NO.3(581-597).pdfARTÍCULO 1_NO.3(581-597).pdfapplication/pdf1156834https://dspace7-unicartagena.metabuscador.org/bitstreams/10d56cba-70fb-4140-856c-d27542778357/downloadfd76f954bbf6505f054f28d201aa42f9MD51LICENSElicense.txtlicense.txttext/plain; charset=utf-81756https://dspace7-unicartagena.metabuscador.org/bitstreams/a6be5262-3e1c-4ea9-a75f-e1268e42e4c1/download7b38fcee9ba3bc8639fa56f350c81be3MD52TEXTARTÍCULO 1_NO.3(581-597).pdf.txtARTÍCULO 1_NO.3(581-597).pdf.txtExtracted texttext/plain56399https://dspace7-unicartagena.metabuscador.org/bitstreams/071f135a-7ef4-4352-8a96-41e9a6f54492/downloadc030ed558f397c49bcd42c664d311743MD53THUMBNAILARTÍCULO 1_NO.3(581-597).pdf.jpgARTÍCULO 1_NO.3(581-597).pdf.jpgGenerated Thumbnailimage/jpeg6493https://dspace7-unicartagena.metabuscador.org/bitstreams/2f109ccd-fadf-4efe-8b1b-b74a9f01b3f3/download6fdd9a4d91b150fda7c9f27e8feb53f8MD5411227/10219oai:dspace7-unicartagena.metabuscador.org:11227/102192024-08-28 16:58:34.086https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/open.accesshttps://dspace7-unicartagena.metabuscador.orgBiblioteca Digital Universidad de Cartagenabdigital@metabiblioteca.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 |