{"title":"辅助生殖技术经济评估模型的系统回顾。","authors":"Yuxin Si, Tao Tan, Kexue Pu","doi":"10.1186/s13561-024-00509-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>With the increasing demand for fertility services, it is urgent to select the most cost-effective assisted reproductive technology (ART) treatment plan and include it in medical insurance. Economic evaluation reports are an important reference for medical insurance negotiation. The aim of this study is to systematically evaluate the economic evaluation research of ART, analyze the existing shortcomings, and provide a reference for the economic evaluation of ART.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>PubMed, EMbase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library and ScienceDirect databases were searched for relevant articles on the economic evaluation of ART. These articles were screened, and their quality was evaluated based on the Comprehensive Health Economics Evaluation Report Standard (CHEERS 2022), and the data on the basic characteristics, model characteristics and other aspects of the included studies were summarized.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>One hundred and two related articles were obtained in the preliminary search, but based on the inclusion criteria, 12 studies were used for the analysis, of which nine used the decision tree model. The model parameters were mainly derived from published literature and included retrospective clinical data of patients. Only two studies included direct non-medical and indirect costs in the cost measurement. Live birth rate was used as an outcome indicator in half of the studies.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Suggesting the setting of the threshold range in the field of fertility should be actively discussed, and the monetary value of each live birth is assumed to be in a certain range when the WTP threshold for fertility is uncertain. The range of the parameter sources should be expanded. Direct non-medical and indirect costs should be included in the calculation of costs, and the analysis should be carried out from the perspective of the whole society. In the evaluation of clinical effect, the effectiveness and safety indexes should be selected for a comprehensive evaluation, thereby making the evaluation more comprehensive and reliable. At least subgroup analysis based on age stratification should be considered in the relevant economic evaluation.</p>","PeriodicalId":2,"journal":{"name":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11103951/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Systematic review of the economic evaluation model of assisted reproductive technology.\",\"authors\":\"Yuxin Si, Tao Tan, Kexue Pu\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s13561-024-00509-3\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>With the increasing demand for fertility services, it is urgent to select the most cost-effective assisted reproductive technology (ART) treatment plan and include it in medical insurance. Economic evaluation reports are an important reference for medical insurance negotiation. The aim of this study is to systematically evaluate the economic evaluation research of ART, analyze the existing shortcomings, and provide a reference for the economic evaluation of ART.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>PubMed, EMbase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library and ScienceDirect databases were searched for relevant articles on the economic evaluation of ART. These articles were screened, and their quality was evaluated based on the Comprehensive Health Economics Evaluation Report Standard (CHEERS 2022), and the data on the basic characteristics, model characteristics and other aspects of the included studies were summarized.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>One hundred and two related articles were obtained in the preliminary search, but based on the inclusion criteria, 12 studies were used for the analysis, of which nine used the decision tree model. The model parameters were mainly derived from published literature and included retrospective clinical data of patients. Only two studies included direct non-medical and indirect costs in the cost measurement. Live birth rate was used as an outcome indicator in half of the studies.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Suggesting the setting of the threshold range in the field of fertility should be actively discussed, and the monetary value of each live birth is assumed to be in a certain range when the WTP threshold for fertility is uncertain. The range of the parameter sources should be expanded. Direct non-medical and indirect costs should be included in the calculation of costs, and the analysis should be carried out from the perspective of the whole society. In the evaluation of clinical effect, the effectiveness and safety indexes should be selected for a comprehensive evaluation, thereby making the evaluation more comprehensive and reliable. At least subgroup analysis based on age stratification should be considered in the relevant economic evaluation.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":2,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"ACS Applied Bio Materials\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-05-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11103951/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"ACS Applied Bio Materials\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"96\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13561-024-00509-3\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","FirstCategoryId":"96","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13561-024-00509-3","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
背景:随着生育服务需求的不断增长,选择最具成本效益的辅助生殖技术(ART)治疗方案并将其纳入医疗保险已迫在眉睫。经济评估报告是医疗保险谈判的重要参考。本研究旨在系统评价辅助生殖技术的经济评价研究,分析存在的不足,为辅助生殖技术的经济评价提供参考:方法:在 PubMed、EMbase、Web of Science、Cochrane Library 和 ScienceDirect 数据库中检索 ART 经济评估的相关文章。对这些文章进行筛选,根据《卫生经济学综合评价报告标准》(CHEERS 2022)对其质量进行评价,并对纳入研究的基本特征、模型特征等方面的数据进行汇总:初步检索共获得 122 篇相关文章,但根据纳入标准,有 12 项研究被用于分析,其中 9 项使用了决策树模型。模型参数主要来自已发表的文献,包括患者的回顾性临床数据。只有两项研究将直接非医疗成本和间接成本纳入了成本测算。半数研究将活产率作为结果指标:建议应积极讨论生育领域阈值范围的设定,当生育的 WTP 阈值不确定时,应假设每个活产的货币价值在一定范围内。应扩大参数来源的范围。在计算成本时,应包括直接非医疗成本和间接成本,并从整个社会的角度进行分析。在临床效果评价中,应选择有效性和安全性指标进行综合评价,使评价更全面、更可靠。在相关的经济评价中,至少应考虑基于年龄分层的亚组分析。
Systematic review of the economic evaluation model of assisted reproductive technology.
Background: With the increasing demand for fertility services, it is urgent to select the most cost-effective assisted reproductive technology (ART) treatment plan and include it in medical insurance. Economic evaluation reports are an important reference for medical insurance negotiation. The aim of this study is to systematically evaluate the economic evaluation research of ART, analyze the existing shortcomings, and provide a reference for the economic evaluation of ART.
Methods: PubMed, EMbase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library and ScienceDirect databases were searched for relevant articles on the economic evaluation of ART. These articles were screened, and their quality was evaluated based on the Comprehensive Health Economics Evaluation Report Standard (CHEERS 2022), and the data on the basic characteristics, model characteristics and other aspects of the included studies were summarized.
Results: One hundred and two related articles were obtained in the preliminary search, but based on the inclusion criteria, 12 studies were used for the analysis, of which nine used the decision tree model. The model parameters were mainly derived from published literature and included retrospective clinical data of patients. Only two studies included direct non-medical and indirect costs in the cost measurement. Live birth rate was used as an outcome indicator in half of the studies.
Conclusion: Suggesting the setting of the threshold range in the field of fertility should be actively discussed, and the monetary value of each live birth is assumed to be in a certain range when the WTP threshold for fertility is uncertain. The range of the parameter sources should be expanded. Direct non-medical and indirect costs should be included in the calculation of costs, and the analysis should be carried out from the perspective of the whole society. In the evaluation of clinical effect, the effectiveness and safety indexes should be selected for a comprehensive evaluation, thereby making the evaluation more comprehensive and reliable. At least subgroup analysis based on age stratification should be considered in the relevant economic evaluation.