Cost-of-illness studies in nine Central and Eastern European countries
Cost-of-illness studies in nine Central and Eastern European countries
复制标题
DOI：
10.1007/s10198-019-01066-x
复制
发表时间：
2019-06-01
影响因子：
4.4
通讯作者：
Gulacsi, Laszlo
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Brodszky, Valentin;Beretzky, Zsuzsanna;Gulacsi, Laszlo
迄今为止，尚未发表一份评估中欧和东欧（CEE）区域疾病成本（COI）研究的多国审查报告。我们的主要目的是对中欧和东欧发表的COI研究进行一般性描述。方法在2006年1月1日至2017年6月1日期间，在Medline、EMBASE、Cochrane图书馆、CINAHL和Web of Science中进行系统检索，以确定来自9个中东欧国家的所有相关COI研究。纳入了不受年龄、合并症或治疗限制的报告费用的COI研究。分析了方法、出版标准和成本结果。我们确定了58项研究，提供了83个国家特定的COI结果：奥地利（n = 9）、保加利亚（n = 16）、克罗地亚（n = 3）、捷克共和国（n = 10）、匈牙利（n = 24）、波兰（n = 11）、罗马尼亚（n = 3）、斯洛伐克（n = 3）和斯洛文尼亚（n = 4）。内分泌、营养和代谢疾病（18%）、肿瘤（12%）、感染（11%）和神经系统疾病（11%）是最常被研究的临床领域，多发性硬化症是最常被研究的疾病。总体而言，57项（98%）研究明确说明了资源使用数据的来源，45项（78%）研究角度，34项（64%）成本计算方法，24项（58%）报告了至少一个单位成本。无论方法上的差异如何，疾病成本与各国人均国内生产总值之间存在正相关关系。疾病成本研究在方法学、出版实践和临床领域方面差异很大。由于这些异质性，COI结果在中欧和东欧国家之间的可转移性受到限制。
Background To date, a multi-country review evaluating the cost-of-illness (COI) studies from the Central and Eastern European (CEE) region has not yet been published. Our main objective was to provide a general description about published COI studies from CEE.Methods A systematic search was performed between 1 January 2006 and 1 June 2017 in Medline, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library, CINAHL, and Web of Science to identify all relevant COI studies from nine CEE countries. COI studies reporting costs without any restrictions by age, co-morbidities, or treatment were included. Methodology, publication standards, and cost results were analysed.Results We identified 58 studies providing 83 country-specific COI results: Austria (n = 9), Bulgaria (n = 16), Croatia (n = 3), the Czech Republic (n = 10), Hungary (n = 24), Poland (n = 11), Romania (n = 3), Slovakia (n = 3), and Slovenia (n = 4). Endocrine, nutritional, and metabolic diseases (18%), neoplasms (12%), infections (11%), and neurological disorders (11%) were the most frequently studied clinical areas, and multiple sclerosis was the most commonly studied disease. Overall, 57 (98%) of the studies explicitly stated the source of resource use data, 45 (78%) the study perspective, 34 (64%) the costing method, and 24 (58%) reported at least one unit costs. Regardless of methodological differences, a positive relationship was observed between costs of diseases and countries' per capita GDP.Conclusions Cost-of-illness studies varied considerably in terms of methodology, publication practice, and clinical areas. Due to these heterogeneities, transferability of the COI results is limited across Central and Eastern European countries.