Utility Values of Health Status in Gastric Cancer: A Systematic Review

IF 1.4 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Cristian Gonzalez MA , Manuel Espinoza PhD , Matías Libuy MA , Francisca Crispi MA , Arnoldo Riquelme MD , Fernando Alarid-Escudero PhD , Gonzalo Latorre MD , Margarita Pizarro MD , Cristóbal Cuadrado PhD
{"title":"Utility Values of Health Status in Gastric Cancer: A Systematic Review","authors":"Cristian Gonzalez MA ,&nbsp;Manuel Espinoza PhD ,&nbsp;Matías Libuy MA ,&nbsp;Francisca Crispi MA ,&nbsp;Arnoldo Riquelme MD ,&nbsp;Fernando Alarid-Escudero PhD ,&nbsp;Gonzalo Latorre MD ,&nbsp;Margarita Pizarro MD ,&nbsp;Cristóbal Cuadrado PhD","doi":"10.1016/j.vhri.2024.101063","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objectives</h3><div>Gastric cancer (GC) imposes a significant burden of disease globally. Multiple treatments are available but are associated with high costs and potentially detrimental effects on quality of life. The utility values of health status are measures of patient preference over quality of life, which are increasingly used for health and economic decision-making. Currently, there is little systematized information on the utility values for different stages of GC. This systematic review synthesizes and meta-analyses the literature on GC utilities.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>A search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, MEDLINE, and Cochrane Library for studies reporting utility values calculated using direct and indirect methods. Information from the selected studies was extracted and appraised, and meta-analyses of utility values based on GC health states were performed.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Twelve studies involving 4585 patients were included. Random-effects meta-analysis estimates showed a mean utility of 0.77 (95% CI 0.7–0.85) for stage I, 0.75 (95% CI 0.65–0.85) for stage II, 0.70 (95% CI 0.63–0.96) for stage III, and 0.64 (95% CI 0.56–0.32) for stage IV. All estimates showed considerable heterogeneity.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>Our study provides an updated overview of the literature on utility values in GC and presents a discussion of the relevance of GC stages for its analysis. Decision-makers should consider patients’ preferences in the proposal of policies and clinical decisions.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":23497,"journal":{"name":"Value in health regional issues","volume":"46 ","pages":"Article 101063"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Value in health regional issues","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212109924000967","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives

Gastric cancer (GC) imposes a significant burden of disease globally. Multiple treatments are available but are associated with high costs and potentially detrimental effects on quality of life. The utility values of health status are measures of patient preference over quality of life, which are increasingly used for health and economic decision-making. Currently, there is little systematized information on the utility values for different stages of GC. This systematic review synthesizes and meta-analyses the literature on GC utilities.

Methods

A search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, MEDLINE, and Cochrane Library for studies reporting utility values calculated using direct and indirect methods. Information from the selected studies was extracted and appraised, and meta-analyses of utility values based on GC health states were performed.

Results

Twelve studies involving 4585 patients were included. Random-effects meta-analysis estimates showed a mean utility of 0.77 (95% CI 0.7–0.85) for stage I, 0.75 (95% CI 0.65–0.85) for stage II, 0.70 (95% CI 0.63–0.96) for stage III, and 0.64 (95% CI 0.56–0.32) for stage IV. All estimates showed considerable heterogeneity.

Conclusions

Our study provides an updated overview of the literature on utility values in GC and presents a discussion of the relevance of GC stages for its analysis. Decision-makers should consider patients’ preferences in the proposal of policies and clinical decisions.
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Value in health regional issues
Value in health regional issues Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics-Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics (miscellaneous)
CiteScore
2.60
自引率
5.00%
发文量
127
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信