Research Article
No access
Published Online: 27 June 2014

Critical Appraisal of Published Systematic Reviews Assessing the Cost-Effectiveness of Telemedicine Studies

Publication: Telemedicine and e-Health
Volume 20, Issue Number 7

Abstract

Background: Over the last 10 years several systematic reviews have been published on the cost-effectiveness of telemedicine studies. Most reviews have concluded that there is not much difference in the cost-effectiveness when delivering health services via telemedicine or by conventional means. We are not aware of any systematic review looking at the systematic reviews of cost-effectiveness of telemedicine. This study was designed to identify published systematic reviews on the cost-effectiveness of telemedicine studies and to undertake a quality assessment of the identified systematic reviews. Materials and Methods: We searched six electronic databases, including Medline, Embase, and the NHS Economic Evaluation Database, combining “review” terms with “telemedicine” terms to identify systematic reviews. Results: We identified 4,116 potential abstracts. Nine systematic reviews met the inclusion criteria, which looked at the cost-effectiveness of telemedicine in general. All reviews were similar in terms of their stated purpose, and the objectives were clear. Three of the reviews did not use a checklist for the economic evaluation studies included in their review. The quality assessment found that five of the nine reviews had minimal flaws. Conclusions: Even though the general quality of reporting of the reviews was fine, we have found that conclusions cannot be drawn on the cost-effectiveness of telemedicine applications based on the methodological flaws in the economic analysis of the studies included in the reviews. Over time, reporting of cost-effectiveness has generally improved; however, there is still room for improvement, and authors need to use the recommended checklists for economic evaluations.

Get full access to this article

View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.

References

1.
Drummond MF, Sculpher MJ, Torrance GW, O'Brien BJ, Stoddart GL. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes, 3rd ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 2005.
2.
Evers S, Goossens M, de Vet H, van Tulder M, Ament A. Criteria list for assessment of methodological quality of economic evaluations: Consensus on health economic criteria. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2005;21:240–254.
3.
Husereau D, Drummond M, Petrou S, Carswell C, Moher D, Greenberg D, et al. Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement. BMJ 2013;346:f1049.
4.
McIntosh E, Cairns J. A framework for the economic evaluation of telemedicine. J Telemed Telecare 1997;3:132–139.
5.
Sisk JE, Sanders JH. A proposed framework for economic evaluation of telemedicine. Telemed J 1998;4:31–37.
6.
Bahaadinbeigy K, Yogesan K, Wootton R. Gaps in the systematic reviews of telemedicine fields. J Telemed Telecare 2010;16:414–416.
7.
Ekeland AG, Bowes A, Flottorp S. Effectiveness of telemedicine: A systematic review of reviews. Int J Med Inform 2010;79:736–771.
8.
Ekeland AG, Bowes A, Flottorp S. Methodologies for assessing telemedicine: A systematic review of reviews. Int J Med Inform 2012;81:1–11.
9.
Clarke M, Shah A, Sharma U. Systematic review of studies on telemonitoring of patients with congestive heart failure: A meta-analysis. J Telemed Telecare 2011;17:7–14.
10.
Gaikwad R, Warren J. The role of home-based information and communications technology interventions in chronic disease management: A systematic literature review. Health Informatics J 2009;15:122–146.
11.
Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG; PRISMA Group. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA statement. PLoS Med 2009;6:e1000097.
12.
Oxman A, Guyatt G. Validation of an index of the quality of review articles. J Clin Epidemiol 1991;44:1271–1278.
13.
Whitten PS, Mair FS, Haycox A, May CR, Williams TL, Hellmich S. Systematic review of cost effectiveness studies of telemedicine interventions. BMJ 2002;324:1434–1437.
14.
Bergmo TS. Can economic evaluation in telemedicine be trusted? A systematic review of the literature. Cost Eff Resour Alloc 2009;7:18.
15.
Mistry H. Systematic review of studies of the cost-effectiveness of telemedicine and telecare. Changes in the economic evidence over twenty years. J Telemed Telecare 2012;18:1–6.
16.
Hailey D, Ohinmaa A, Roine R. Study quality and evidence of benefit in recent assessments of telemedicine. J Telemed Telecare 2004;10:318–324.
17.
Hailey D, Roine R, Ohinmaa A. Systematic review of evidence for the benefits of telemedicine. J Telemed Telecare 2002;8(Suppl 1):1–30.
18.
Rojas SV, Gagnon M-P. A systematic review of the key indicators for assessing telehomecare cost-effectiveness. Telemed J E Health 2008;14:896–904.
19.
Roine R, Ohinmaa A, Hailey D. Assessing telemedicine: A systematic review of the literature. CMAJ 2001;165:765–771.
20.
Wade VA, Karnon J, Elshaug AG, Hiller JE. A systematic review of economic analyses of telehealth services using real time video communication. BMC Health Serv Res 2010;10:233–246.
21.
Peeters JM, Mistiaen P, Francke AL. Costs and financial benefits of video communication compared to usual care at home: A systematic review. J Telemed Telecare 2011;17:403–411.
22.
Haycox A, Walley T. Pharmacoeconomics: Evaluating the evaluators. Br J Clin Pharmacol 1997;43:451–456.
23.
Chiou C-F, Hay JW, Wallace JF, Bloom BS, Neumann PJ, Sullivan SD, et al. Development and validation of a grading system for the quality of cost-effectiveness studies. Med Care 2003;41:32–44.
24.
Zanaboni P, Wootton R. Adoption of telemedicine: From pilot stage to routine delivery. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 2012;12:1.
25.
Booth A. Who will appraise the appraisers?—The paper, the instrument and the user. Health Info Libr J 2007;24:72–76.

Information & Authors

Information

Published In

cover image Telemedicine and e-Health
Telemedicine and e-Health
Volume 20Issue Number 7July 2014
Pages: 609 - 618
PubMed: 24820406

History

Published in print: July 2014
Published online: 27 June 2014
Published ahead of print: 12 May 2014
Accepted: 22 October 2013
Revision received: 22 October 2013
Received: 29 July 2013

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Topics

Authors

Affiliations

Hema Mistry, PhD
Warwick Evidence, Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, United Kingdom.
Health Economics Unit, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom.
Hyeladzira Garnvwa, MSc
Health Economics Unit, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom.
Raymond Oppong, MSc
Health Economics Unit, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom.

Notes

Address correspondence to:Hema Mistry, PhDWarwick EvidenceWarwick Medical SchoolUniversity of WarwickGibbet Hill RoadCoventry, CV4 7ALUnited Kingdom
E-mail: [email protected]

Disclosure Statement

No competing financial interests exist.

Metrics & Citations

Metrics

Citations

Export citation

Select the format you want to export the citations of this publication.

View Options

Get Access

Access content

To read the fulltext, please use one of the options below to sign in or purchase access.

Society Access

If you are a member of a society that has access to this content please log in via your society website and then return to this publication.

Restore your content access

Enter your email address to restore your content access:

Note: This functionality works only for purchases done as a guest. If you already have an account, log in to access the content to which you are entitled.

View options

PDF/EPUB

View PDF/ePub

Full Text

View Full Text

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

Share

Share

Copy the content Link

Share on social media

Back to Top