Review2014

Critical Appraisal of Published Systematic Reviews Assessing the Cost-Effectiveness of Telemedicine Studies

Hema Mistry · Hyeladzira Garnvwa · Raymond Oppong

65 citations0/0 files storedTelemedicine Journal and e-Health

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life Telemedicine and Telehealth Implementation Meta-analysis and systematic reviews

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Over the last 10 years several systematic reviews have been published on the cost-effectiveness of telemedicine studies. Most reviews have concluded that there is not much difference in the cost-effectiveness when delivering health services via telemedicine or by conventional means. We are not aware of any systematic review looking at the systematic reviews of cost-effectiveness of telemedicine. This study was designed to identify published systematic reviews on the cost-effectiveness of telemedicine studies and to undertake a quality assessment of the identified systematic reviews. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We searched six electronic databases, including Medline, Embase, and the NHS Economic Evaluation Database, combining "review" terms with "telemedicine" terms to identify systematic reviews. RESULTS: We identified 4,116 potential abstracts. Nine systematic reviews met the inclusion criteria, which looked at the cost-effectiveness of telemedicine in general. All reviews were similar in terms of their stated purpose, and the objectives were clear. Three of the reviews did not use a checklist for the economic evaluation studies included in their review. The quality assessment found that five of the nine reviews had minimal flaws. CONCLUSIONS: Even though the general quality of reporting of the reviews was fine, we have found that conclusions cannot be drawn on the cost-effectiveness of telemedicine applications based on the methodological flaws in the economic analysis of the studies included in the reviews. Over time, reporting of cost-effectiveness has generally improved; however, there is still room for improvement, and authors need to use the recommended checklists for economic evaluations.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 65 citations exist upstream.

References

2009Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement 2009Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement 2005Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes 2013Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement 2005Criteria list for assessment of methodological quality of economic evaluations: Consensus on Health Economic Criteria 1991Validation of an index of the quality of review articles 2003Development and Validation of a Grading System for the Quality of Cost-Effectiveness Studies 2009Can economic evaluation in telemedicine be trusted? A systematic review of the literature

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.