Health economic evaluations based on routine data in Germany: a systematic review

Abstract Background Improved data access and funding for health services research have promoted the application of routine data to measure costs and effects of interventions within the German health care system. Following the trend towards real world evidence, this review aims to evaluate the status...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Fabia Mareike Gansen
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: BMC 2018-04-01
Series:BMC Health Services Research
Subjects:
Online Access:http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12913-018-3080-3
id doaj-fbee9e97c9e4426cb57a89751ddb2c83
record_format Article
spelling doaj-fbee9e97c9e4426cb57a89751ddb2c832020-11-25T00:14:19ZengBMCBMC Health Services Research1472-69632018-04-0118111110.1186/s12913-018-3080-3Health economic evaluations based on routine data in Germany: a systematic reviewFabia Mareike Gansen0Department of Health Care Management, Institute of Public Health and Nursing Research, Health Sciences, University of BremenAbstract Background Improved data access and funding for health services research have promoted the application of routine data to measure costs and effects of interventions within the German health care system. Following the trend towards real world evidence, this review aims to evaluate the status and quality of health economic evaluations based on routine data in Germany. Methods To identify relevant economic evaluations, a systematic literature search in the databases PubMed and EMBASE was complemented by a manual search. The included studies had to be full economic evaluations using German routine data to measure either costs, effects, or both. Study characteristics were assessed with a structured template. Additionally, the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) were used to measure quality of reporting. Results In total, 912 records were identified and 35 studies were included in the further analysis. The majority of these studies was published in the past 5 years (n = 27, 77.1%) and used insurance claims data as a source of routine data (n = 30, 85.7%). The most common method used for handling selection bias was propensity score matching. With regard to the reporting quality, 42.9% (n = 15) of the studies satisfied at least 80% of the criteria on the CHEERS checklist. Conclusions This review confirms that routine data has become an increasingly common data source for health economic evaluations in Germany. While most studies addressed the application of routine data, this analysis reveals deficits in considering methodological particularities and in reporting quality of economic evaluations based on routine data. Nevertheless, this review demonstrates the overall potential of routine data for economic evaluations.http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12913-018-3080-3Economic evaluationCost-consequences analysisCost-effectiveness analysisRoutine dataAdministrative dataGermany
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Fabia Mareike Gansen
spellingShingle Fabia Mareike Gansen
Health economic evaluations based on routine data in Germany: a systematic review
BMC Health Services Research
Economic evaluation
Cost-consequences analysis
Cost-effectiveness analysis
Routine data
Administrative data
Germany
author_facet Fabia Mareike Gansen
author_sort Fabia Mareike Gansen
title Health economic evaluations based on routine data in Germany: a systematic review
title_short Health economic evaluations based on routine data in Germany: a systematic review
title_full Health economic evaluations based on routine data in Germany: a systematic review
title_fullStr Health economic evaluations based on routine data in Germany: a systematic review
title_full_unstemmed Health economic evaluations based on routine data in Germany: a systematic review
title_sort health economic evaluations based on routine data in germany: a systematic review
publisher BMC
series BMC Health Services Research
issn 1472-6963
publishDate 2018-04-01
description Abstract Background Improved data access and funding for health services research have promoted the application of routine data to measure costs and effects of interventions within the German health care system. Following the trend towards real world evidence, this review aims to evaluate the status and quality of health economic evaluations based on routine data in Germany. Methods To identify relevant economic evaluations, a systematic literature search in the databases PubMed and EMBASE was complemented by a manual search. The included studies had to be full economic evaluations using German routine data to measure either costs, effects, or both. Study characteristics were assessed with a structured template. Additionally, the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) were used to measure quality of reporting. Results In total, 912 records were identified and 35 studies were included in the further analysis. The majority of these studies was published in the past 5 years (n = 27, 77.1%) and used insurance claims data as a source of routine data (n = 30, 85.7%). The most common method used for handling selection bias was propensity score matching. With regard to the reporting quality, 42.9% (n = 15) of the studies satisfied at least 80% of the criteria on the CHEERS checklist. Conclusions This review confirms that routine data has become an increasingly common data source for health economic evaluations in Germany. While most studies addressed the application of routine data, this analysis reveals deficits in considering methodological particularities and in reporting quality of economic evaluations based on routine data. Nevertheless, this review demonstrates the overall potential of routine data for economic evaluations.
topic Economic evaluation
Cost-consequences analysis
Cost-effectiveness analysis
Routine data
Administrative data
Germany
url http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12913-018-3080-3
work_keys_str_mv AT fabiamareikegansen healtheconomicevaluationsbasedonroutinedataingermanyasystematicreview
_version_ 1725391138696724480