Cost-Effectiveness Analysis in Radiology: A Systematic Review

Alice Zhou, David Mark Yousem, Matthew D. Alvin

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Purpose: Cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) have become more prevalent in radiology. However, the lack of standard methodology may lead to conflicting conclusions on the cost-effectiveness of an imaging modality and hinder CEA-based policy recommendations. This study reviews recent CEAs to identify areas of methodological variation, explore their impact on interpretation, and discuss optimal strategies for performing CEAs in radiology. Methods: We performed a systematic review for cost-utility analyses in radiology from 2013 to 2017. Cost and quality-of-life methods were analyzed and compared using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards checklist. Results: Eighty cost-utility studies met our inclusion criteria. A payer perspective was the most common (70%) and hospital perspective the least common (5%). Fourteen studies (17.5%) did not report perspective, and 12 (15%) reported a perspective inconsistent with their performed analysis. Cost inclusion varied greatly between studies; adverse effects of imaging (20.5%) and hospitalization (34.6%) were the least frequently included direct costs. Studies that measured their own utilities most commonly used the EuroQol-5D and Short Form-6D questionnaires; however, most studies (80%) cited utilities from previous literature. Seventy-two studies (90%) used willingness-to-pay thresholds, and 30 used cost-effectiveness acceptability curves (41.7%). Conclusion: We observed statistically significant methodological variation indicating the need for a standardized, accurate means of performing and presenting CEAs within radiology. We make several recommendations to address key problems regarding study perspective, cost inclusion, and use of willingness-to-pay thresholds. Further work is required to ensure comparability and transparency between studies such that policymakers are properly informed when utilizing CEA results.

Original languageEnglish (US)
JournalJournal of the American College of Radiology
DOIs
StateAccepted/In press - Jan 1 2018

Fingerprint

Radiology
Cost-Benefit Analysis
Costs and Cost Analysis
Checklist
Hospitalization
Quality of Life
Health

Keywords

  • Cost effectiveness
  • cost utility
  • outcomes
  • QALY
  • quality of life

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging

Cite this

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis in Radiology : A Systematic Review. / Zhou, Alice; Yousem, David Mark; Alvin, Matthew D.

In: Journal of the American College of Radiology, 01.01.2018.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{8d00ccdc8370409f8af9574bc597c716,
title = "Cost-Effectiveness Analysis in Radiology: A Systematic Review",
abstract = "Purpose: Cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) have become more prevalent in radiology. However, the lack of standard methodology may lead to conflicting conclusions on the cost-effectiveness of an imaging modality and hinder CEA-based policy recommendations. This study reviews recent CEAs to identify areas of methodological variation, explore their impact on interpretation, and discuss optimal strategies for performing CEAs in radiology. Methods: We performed a systematic review for cost-utility analyses in radiology from 2013 to 2017. Cost and quality-of-life methods were analyzed and compared using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards checklist. Results: Eighty cost-utility studies met our inclusion criteria. A payer perspective was the most common (70{\%}) and hospital perspective the least common (5{\%}). Fourteen studies (17.5{\%}) did not report perspective, and 12 (15{\%}) reported a perspective inconsistent with their performed analysis. Cost inclusion varied greatly between studies; adverse effects of imaging (20.5{\%}) and hospitalization (34.6{\%}) were the least frequently included direct costs. Studies that measured their own utilities most commonly used the EuroQol-5D and Short Form-6D questionnaires; however, most studies (80{\%}) cited utilities from previous literature. Seventy-two studies (90{\%}) used willingness-to-pay thresholds, and 30 used cost-effectiveness acceptability curves (41.7{\%}). Conclusion: We observed statistically significant methodological variation indicating the need for a standardized, accurate means of performing and presenting CEAs within radiology. We make several recommendations to address key problems regarding study perspective, cost inclusion, and use of willingness-to-pay thresholds. Further work is required to ensure comparability and transparency between studies such that policymakers are properly informed when utilizing CEA results.",
keywords = "Cost effectiveness, cost utility, outcomes, QALY, quality of life",
author = "Alice Zhou and Yousem, {David Mark} and Alvin, {Matthew D.}",
year = "2018",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.jacr.2018.06.018",
language = "English (US)",
journal = "Journal of the American College of Radiology",
issn = "1558-349X",
publisher = "Elsevier BV",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Cost-Effectiveness Analysis in Radiology

T2 - A Systematic Review

AU - Zhou, Alice

AU - Yousem, David Mark

AU - Alvin, Matthew D.

PY - 2018/1/1

Y1 - 2018/1/1

N2 - Purpose: Cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) have become more prevalent in radiology. However, the lack of standard methodology may lead to conflicting conclusions on the cost-effectiveness of an imaging modality and hinder CEA-based policy recommendations. This study reviews recent CEAs to identify areas of methodological variation, explore their impact on interpretation, and discuss optimal strategies for performing CEAs in radiology. Methods: We performed a systematic review for cost-utility analyses in radiology from 2013 to 2017. Cost and quality-of-life methods were analyzed and compared using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards checklist. Results: Eighty cost-utility studies met our inclusion criteria. A payer perspective was the most common (70%) and hospital perspective the least common (5%). Fourteen studies (17.5%) did not report perspective, and 12 (15%) reported a perspective inconsistent with their performed analysis. Cost inclusion varied greatly between studies; adverse effects of imaging (20.5%) and hospitalization (34.6%) were the least frequently included direct costs. Studies that measured their own utilities most commonly used the EuroQol-5D and Short Form-6D questionnaires; however, most studies (80%) cited utilities from previous literature. Seventy-two studies (90%) used willingness-to-pay thresholds, and 30 used cost-effectiveness acceptability curves (41.7%). Conclusion: We observed statistically significant methodological variation indicating the need for a standardized, accurate means of performing and presenting CEAs within radiology. We make several recommendations to address key problems regarding study perspective, cost inclusion, and use of willingness-to-pay thresholds. Further work is required to ensure comparability and transparency between studies such that policymakers are properly informed when utilizing CEA results.

AB - Purpose: Cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) have become more prevalent in radiology. However, the lack of standard methodology may lead to conflicting conclusions on the cost-effectiveness of an imaging modality and hinder CEA-based policy recommendations. This study reviews recent CEAs to identify areas of methodological variation, explore their impact on interpretation, and discuss optimal strategies for performing CEAs in radiology. Methods: We performed a systematic review for cost-utility analyses in radiology from 2013 to 2017. Cost and quality-of-life methods were analyzed and compared using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards checklist. Results: Eighty cost-utility studies met our inclusion criteria. A payer perspective was the most common (70%) and hospital perspective the least common (5%). Fourteen studies (17.5%) did not report perspective, and 12 (15%) reported a perspective inconsistent with their performed analysis. Cost inclusion varied greatly between studies; adverse effects of imaging (20.5%) and hospitalization (34.6%) were the least frequently included direct costs. Studies that measured their own utilities most commonly used the EuroQol-5D and Short Form-6D questionnaires; however, most studies (80%) cited utilities from previous literature. Seventy-two studies (90%) used willingness-to-pay thresholds, and 30 used cost-effectiveness acceptability curves (41.7%). Conclusion: We observed statistically significant methodological variation indicating the need for a standardized, accurate means of performing and presenting CEAs within radiology. We make several recommendations to address key problems regarding study perspective, cost inclusion, and use of willingness-to-pay thresholds. Further work is required to ensure comparability and transparency between studies such that policymakers are properly informed when utilizing CEA results.

KW - Cost effectiveness

KW - cost utility

KW - outcomes

KW - QALY

KW - quality of life

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85050377116&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85050377116&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.jacr.2018.06.018

DO - 10.1016/j.jacr.2018.06.018

M3 - Article

C2 - 30057243

AN - SCOPUS:85050377116

JO - Journal of the American College of Radiology

JF - Journal of the American College of Radiology

SN - 1558-349X

ER -