LUCIANA MARTINS ROZMAN
Projetos de Pesquisa
Unidades Organizacionais
LIM/38 - Laboratório de Epidemiologia e Imunobiologia, Hospital das Clínicas, Faculdade de Medicina
3 resultados
Resultados de Busca
Agora exibindo 1 - 3 de 3
- The methodological quality of economic evaluations of measles outbreaks: A systematic review of cost-of-illness studies(2023) SOAREZ, Patricia Coelho de; ROZMANA, Luciana Martins; FONSECA, Taiane Siraisi; BORSARI, Pietro Rodrigo; PERCIO, Jadher; BARRERA, Lely Stella Guzman; SARTORI, Ana Marli ChristovamObjectives: To identify the main cost components included in the economic evaivations of measles outbreaks, their items and cost drivers, and evaluate the quality of costing methodology, analyzing the key features that may affect the validity of these studies in countries with different income leveis Methods: We systematically searched multiple databases EMBASE, MEDLINE (via PubMed), Biblioteca Virtual em Saude do Ministerio da Saude (BVS MS), NHS Economic Evaluation Database (NHS EED) and NHS Health Technology Assessment (NHS HTA) (via The Centre for Reviews and Dissemination Library - CRD), and EconLit, SCOPUS, and Web of Science, selecting cost analysis and cost of illness studies (COI) of measles outbreaks. Two independent reviewers screened articles for relevance and extracted the data. The quality of costing methods was assessed using a guide to critical evaluation of COI studies. We performed a qualitative narrative synthesis. Results: Twenty-two studies were reviewed. Most studies evaluated outbreaks that occurred from 2011 to 2013 and 2017 to 2019. Total costs varied from $40,147 to $39.3 million. Per case cost varied from $168 to $49,439. The main drivers of measles outbreak costs were outbreak response, personnel, and productivity losses. Most studies (20/22) did not report the costing methodology adonted, the degree of disaggregation used in the identification and measurement of resource and costs components and the method for the valuation of resource and cost components. Conclusions: The quality of the costing methodology, its transparency and accuracy are essential to the validity of these studies results and their potential use to allocate public health resources in the most efficient manner and to inform measles outbreak control strategies, with rapid and effective response. (c) 2023 Published by Elsevier Ltd.
- Economic evaluation of wheelchairs interventions: a systematic review(2023) FERRETTI, Eliana C.; SUZUMURA, Erica; ROZMAN, Luciana M.; COOPER, Rory A.; SOAREZ, Patricia C. deObjective: The overall aim of this systematic review was to identify and synthesise the best available evidence on effectiveness, resource use and costs involved in wheelchair interventions of adults with mobility limitations. Methodology: This systematic review was undertaken in accordance with the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination Guidelines. The protocol for this systematic review was registered with PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic reviews. The following PICOS eligibility criteria were considered: (P) Population was individuals with mobility limitations that live in their community (e.g., non-institutionalized), with aged 18 or older; (I) Intervention was mobility assistive technologies (MAT), such as manual and powered wheelchairs; (C) Comparators (Not Applied); (O) Outcome, the primary outcome of interest, was established as the cost-effectiveness of wheelchair interventions. Direct and indirect costs per unit of effect were expressed in terms of clinical outcome units, quality-adjusted life years gained, utility scores, quality of life measures and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios to inform the economic outcomes. (S) Study design was considered as a health economic evaluation (i.e., including cost-effectiveness analysis, cost-utility analysis and cost benefit analysis as well as partial economic evaluations). The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards - CHEERS, checklist was used for summarising and interpreting the results of economic evaluations. Results: Sixteen studies were included, two were identified as full health economic evaluations and 14 were considered partial health economic evaluations. Conclusion: Only two full health economic analyses of wheelchair interventions have been conducted and both focussed on powered wheelchair provision. There are important gaps in current knowledge regarding wheelchair health economic methods and available outcome measures, which there is a great need for further research.
- Systematic review of economic evaluations on stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) compared to other radiotherapy techniques or surgical procedures for early-stage non-small cell lung cancer(2023) MAIA, Fernando Henrique de Albuquerque; ROZMAN, Luciana Martins; CARVALHO, Heloisa de Andrade; SOAREZ, Patricia Coelho deBackgroundStereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) is recommended as first-choice treatment to inoperable early-stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). However, it is not widely adopted in developing countries, and its cost-effectiveness is unclear. We aimed to perform a systematic review of full economic evaluations (EE) that compared SABR with other radiotherapy or surgical procedures to assess the results and methodological approach.MethodsThe protocol was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42021241640). We included full EE studies with early-stage NSCLC in which one group was submitted to SABR. Studies that were partial EE, included advanced NSCLC or other neoplasm were excluded. We performed the last search on June 2021 in Medline, EMBASE and other databases. The reporting quality were assessed by CHEERS checklist. The main characteristics of each study were tabulated, and the results were presented by a narrative synthesis.ResultsWe included nine studies. Three compared radiotherapy techniques, in which SABR was found to be dominant or cost-effective. Six compared SABR with surgery, and in this group, there was not a unanimous decision. All included only direct healthcare costs but varied about categories included. The parameters used in the model-based studies were highly heterogeneous using mixed data from various sources. The items properly reported varied from 29 to 67%.ConclusionsThe studies were all from developed countries and lacked in reporting quality. We recommend that developing countries produce their own studies. More strict alignment to reporting guidelines and use of robust evidence as model parameters are also advised.