ERICA ARANHA SUZUMURA
Projetos de Pesquisa
Unidades Organizacionais
LIM/38 - Laboratório de Epidemiologia e Imunobiologia, Hospital das Clínicas, Faculdade de Medicina
4 resultados
Resultados de Busca
Agora exibindo 1 - 4 de 4
- Methodological guidelines and publications of benefit-risk assessment for health technology assessment: a scoping review protocol(2023) ASCEF, Bruna De Oliveira; GABRIEL, Franciele Cordeiro; SUZUMURA, Erica Aranha; MAIA, Fernando Henrique de Albuquerque; BORTOLUZZI, Aline Frossard Ribeiro; FARIAS, Natalia Santos; JAHN, Beate; SIEBERT, Uwe; SOAREZ, Patricia Coelho DeBackgroundBenefit-risk assessment (BRA) is used in multiple phases along the health technology's life-cycle to evaluate the balance between the benefits and risks, as it is fundamental to all stakeholders. BRA and its methodological approaches have been applied primarily in the context of regulatory agencies. However, BRA's application and extent in the context of health technology assessment (HTA) bodies remain less clear. Our goal is to perform a scoping review to identify and map methodological guidelines and publications on methods of BRA. This will be done considering the different phases of the life-cycle of health technologies to underline both the depth and extent of research concerning BRA, especially in the context of HTA. Methods and analysisThis scoping review protocol was developed following the framework proposed by Arksey and O'Malley, and the updated guidelines by the Joanna Briggs Institute. We will include methodological publications that provide recommendations or guidelines on methods for BRA. We will conduct electronic searches on Medline (PubMed) and EMBASE (Ovid) databases; manual searches on the main websites of HTA bodies and drug regulatory organisations; and contact experts in the field. Systematic extraction forms will be used to screen and assess the identified publications by independent assessors. We will provide a qualitative synthesis using descriptive statistics and visual tools. Results will be summarised in systematic evidence tables and comparative evidence scoping charts. Ethics and disseminationThis review will use data publicly available and does not require ethics approval. The results of this scoping review will contribute to scientific knowledge and act as a basis for methodologists, guideline developers and researchers for the development of BRA to inform regulatory decisions, reimbursement and coverage decision making. The results will be disseminated through peer-reviewed articles, conferences, policy briefs and workshops. Trial registration numberOpen Science Framework (https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/69T3V).
- Multicriteria decision analysis in health care decision in oncology: a systematic review(2022) CAMPOLINA, Alessandro Goncalves; SUZUMURA, Erica Aranha; Quan Nha Hong; SOAREZ, Patricia Coelho deIntroduction Multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) has been used to inform health decisions in health technology assessments (HTA) processes. This is particularly important to complex treatment decisions in oncology. Areas covered Five databases (PubMed, EMBASE, LILACS, Web of Science and CRD's NHS Economic Evaluation Database) were searched for studies comparing health technologies in oncology, involving the concept MCDA. The ISPOR MCDA Good Practices Guidelines were used to assess the reporting quality. Study selection, appraisal, and data extraction were performed by two reviewers. Fifteen studies were included. The main decision problem was related to health technology assessment of cancer treatments. Clinicians and public health experts were the most frequent stakeholders. The most frequently included criteria comprised therapeutic benefit, and socio-economic impact. Value measurement approach, direct rating techniques, and additive model for aggregation were used in most studies. Uncertainty analysis revealed the impact of posology and costs on the studies' results. All studies showed some level of overlapping decision criteria. Expert opinion There is considerable diversity of methods in MCDA for healthcare decision-making in oncology. The evidence presented can serve as a resource when considering which stakeholders, criteria, and techniques to include in future MCDA studies in oncology.
- 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.
- Effects of 3D image-guided brachytherapy compared to 2D conventional brachytherapy on clinical outcomes in patients with cervical cancer: A systematic review and meta-analyses(2021) SUZUMURA, Erica Aranha; GAMA, Layse Martins; JAHN, Beate; CAMPOLINA, Alessandro Goncalves; CARVALHO, Heloisa de Andrade; SOAREZ, Patricia Coelho dePURPOSE: To assess the effects of three-dimensional image-guided brachytherapy (3D BT) compared to bi-dimensional BT (2D BT) on clinical outcomes in patients with cervical cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We searched PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, CENTRAL, Web of Science, and LILACS for studies assessing the effects of 3D BT versus 2D BT on clinical outcomes. Two reviewers independently screened retrieved citations, extracted data and assessed risk of bias from eligible studies. Hazard ratios (HR) were calculated from Kaplan-Meier curves considering the number of events, their timing and the followup of censored patients. We conducted meta-analyses of HR using the inverse-variance random-effects method. Risk Difference (RD) for toxicities were pooled using the Mantel-Haenszel random-effects method. We used the GRADE system to rate the certainty of evidence. RESULTS: Twenty observational studies involving 4287 patients were included. The meta analyses assessing the effect of 3D BT versus 2D BT on overall survival resulted in a HR of 0.78 (95%CI 0.62-0.98), HR of 0.75 (95%CI 0.62-0.90) for pelvic disease-free survival, HR of 0.93 (95%CI 0.81-1.06) for metastatic disease-free survival, and HR of 0.77 (95%CI 0.59-0.99) for local control. Grade 3-4 global and gastrointestinal toxicities were, respectively, 9% lower (95%CI 6% to 11%) and 5% lower (95%CI 2% to 8%) in patients receiving 3D BT versus 2D BT. Certainty of evidence was very low for all assessed outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Our study may suggest a benefit of 3D BT over conventional 2D BT on important clinical outcomes.