A Systematic Review of Health State Utility Values in the Plastic Surgery Literature

Background:. Cost-utility analyses assess health gains acquired by interventions by incorporating weighted health state utility values (HSUVs). HSUVs are important in plastic and reconstructive surgery (PRS) because they include qualitative metrics when comparing operative techniques or intervention...

Descripción completa

Guardado en:

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales:	Adrienne N. Christopher, MD, Martin P. Morris, MBE, Viren Patel, BS, Kevin Klifto, PharmD, John P. Fischer, MD, MPH
Formato:	article
Lenguaje:	EN
Publicado:	Wolters Kluwer 2021
Materias:	Surgery RD1-811
Acceso en línea:	https://doaj.org/article/6754bdc822ee43cfae0cefcb1cd67e1f
Etiquetas:	Agregar Etiqueta Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!

id	oai:doaj.org-article:6754bdc822ee43cfae0cefcb1cd67e1f
record_format	dspace
spelling	oai:doaj.org-article:6754bdc822ee43cfae0cefcb1cd67e1f2021-11-25T07:58:05ZA Systematic Review of Health State Utility Values in the Plastic Surgery Literature2169-757410.1097/GOX.0000000000003944https://doaj.org/article/6754bdc822ee43cfae0cefcb1cd67e1f2021-11-01T00:00:00Zhttp://journals.lww.com/prsgo/fulltext/10.1097/GOX.0000000000003944https://doaj.org/toc/2169-7574Background:. Cost-utility analyses assess health gains acquired by interventions by incorporating weighted health state utility values (HSUVs). HSUVs are important in plastic and reconstructive surgery (PRS) because they include qualitative metrics when comparing operative techniques or interventions. We systematically reviewed the literature to identify the extent and quality of existing original utilities research within PRS. Methods:. A systematic review of articles with original PRS utility data was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis guidelines. Subspecialty, survey sample size, and respondent characteristics were extracted. For each HSUV, the utility measure [direct (standard gamble, time trade off, visual analog scale) and/or indirect], mean utility score, and measure of variance were recorded. Similar HSUVs were pooled into weighted averages based on sample size if they were derived from the same utility measure. Results:. In total, 348 HSUVs for 194 disease states were derived from 56 studies within seven PRS subspecialties. Utility studies were most common in breast (n = 17, 30.4%) and hand/upper extremity (n = 15, 26.8%), and direct measurements were most frequent [visual analog scale (55.4%), standard gamble (46.4%), time trade off (57.1%)]. Studies surveying the general public had more respondents (n = 165, IQR 103–299) than those that surveyed patients (n = 61, IQR 48–79) or healthcare professionals (n = 42, IQR 10–109). HSUVs for 18 health states were aggregated. Conclusions:. The HSUV literature within PRS is scant and heterogeneous. Researchers should become familiar with these outcomes, as integrating utility and cost data will help illustrate that the impact of certain interventions are cost-effective when we consider patient quality of life.Adrienne N. Christopher, MDMartin P. Morris, MBEViren Patel, BSKevin Klifto, PharmDJohn P. Fischer, MD, MPHWolters KluwerarticleSurgeryRD1-811ENPlastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Global Open, Vol 9, Iss 11, p e3944 (2021)
institution	DOAJ
collection	DOAJ
language	EN
topic	Surgery RD1-811
spellingShingle	Surgery RD1-811 Adrienne N. Christopher, MD Martin P. Morris, MBE Viren Patel, BS Kevin Klifto, PharmD John P. Fischer, MD, MPH A Systematic Review of Health State Utility Values in the Plastic Surgery Literature
description	Background:. Cost-utility analyses assess health gains acquired by interventions by incorporating weighted health state utility values (HSUVs). HSUVs are important in plastic and reconstructive surgery (PRS) because they include qualitative metrics when comparing operative techniques or interventions. We systematically reviewed the literature to identify the extent and quality of existing original utilities research within PRS. Methods:. A systematic review of articles with original PRS utility data was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis guidelines. Subspecialty, survey sample size, and respondent characteristics were extracted. For each HSUV, the utility measure [direct (standard gamble, time trade off, visual analog scale) and/or indirect], mean utility score, and measure of variance were recorded. Similar HSUVs were pooled into weighted averages based on sample size if they were derived from the same utility measure. Results:. In total, 348 HSUVs for 194 disease states were derived from 56 studies within seven PRS subspecialties. Utility studies were most common in breast (n = 17, 30.4%) and hand/upper extremity (n = 15, 26.8%), and direct measurements were most frequent [visual analog scale (55.4%), standard gamble (46.4%), time trade off (57.1%)]. Studies surveying the general public had more respondents (n = 165, IQR 103–299) than those that surveyed patients (n = 61, IQR 48–79) or healthcare professionals (n = 42, IQR 10–109). HSUVs for 18 health states were aggregated. Conclusions:. The HSUV literature within PRS is scant and heterogeneous. Researchers should become familiar with these outcomes, as integrating utility and cost data will help illustrate that the impact of certain interventions are cost-effective when we consider patient quality of life.
format	article
author	Adrienne N. Christopher, MD Martin P. Morris, MBE Viren Patel, BS Kevin Klifto, PharmD John P. Fischer, MD, MPH
author_facet	Adrienne N. Christopher, MD Martin P. Morris, MBE Viren Patel, BS Kevin Klifto, PharmD John P. Fischer, MD, MPH
author_sort	Adrienne N. Christopher, MD
title	A Systematic Review of Health State Utility Values in the Plastic Surgery Literature
title_short	A Systematic Review of Health State Utility Values in the Plastic Surgery Literature
title_full	A Systematic Review of Health State Utility Values in the Plastic Surgery Literature
title_fullStr	A Systematic Review of Health State Utility Values in the Plastic Surgery Literature
title_full_unstemmed	A Systematic Review of Health State Utility Values in the Plastic Surgery Literature
title_sort	systematic review of health state utility values in the plastic surgery literature
publisher	Wolters Kluwer
publishDate	2021
url	https://doaj.org/article/6754bdc822ee43cfae0cefcb1cd67e1f
work_keys_str_mv	AT adriennenchristophermd asystematicreviewofhealthstateutilityvaluesintheplasticsurgeryliterature AT martinpmorrismbe asystematicreviewofhealthstateutilityvaluesintheplasticsurgeryliterature AT virenpatelbs asystematicreviewofhealthstateutilityvaluesintheplasticsurgeryliterature AT kevinkliftopharmd asystematicreviewofhealthstateutilityvaluesintheplasticsurgeryliterature AT johnpfischermdmph asystematicreviewofhealthstateutilityvaluesintheplasticsurgeryliterature AT adriennenchristophermd systematicreviewofhealthstateutilityvaluesintheplasticsurgeryliterature AT martinpmorrismbe systematicreviewofhealthstateutilityvaluesintheplasticsurgeryliterature AT virenpatelbs systematicreviewofhealthstateutilityvaluesintheplasticsurgeryliterature AT kevinkliftopharmd systematicreviewofhealthstateutilityvaluesintheplasticsurgeryliterature AT johnpfischermdmph systematicreviewofhealthstateutilityvaluesintheplasticsurgeryliterature
_version_	1718413560404508672

A Systematic Review of Health State Utility Values in the Plastic Surgery Literature

Ejemplares similares