GRADE guidelines

10. Considering resource use and rating the quality of economic evidence

Massimo Brunetti, Ian Shemilt, Silvia Pregno, Luke Vale, Andrew D. Oxman, Joanne Lord, Jane Sisk, Francis Ruiz, Suzanne Hill, Gordon H. Guyatt, Roman Jaeschke, Mark Helfand, Robin Harbour, Marina Davoli, Laura Amato, Alessandro Liberati, Holger J. Schünemann

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

118 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objectives: In this article, we describe how to include considerations about resource utilization when making recommendations according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. Study Design and Settings: We focus on challenges with rating the confidence in effect estimates (quality of evidence) and incorporating resource use into evidence profiles and Summary of Findings (SoF) tables. Results: GRADE recommends that important differences in resource use between alternative management strategies should be included along with other important outcomes in the evidence profile and SoF table. Key steps in considering resources in making recommendations with GRADE are the identification of items of resource use that may differ between alternative management strategies and that are potentially important to decision makers, finding evidence for the differences in resource use, making judgments regarding confidence in effect estimates using the same criteria used for health outcomes, and valuing the resource use in terms of costs for the specific setting for which recommendations are being made. Conclusions: With our framework, decision makers will have access to concise summaries of recommendations, including ratings of the quality of economic evidence, and better understand the implications for clinical decision making.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)140-150
Number of pages11
JournalJournal of Clinical Epidemiology
Volume66
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - Feb 2013

Fingerprint

Economics
Guidelines
Costs and Cost Analysis
Health
Clinical Decision-Making

Keywords

  • Costs
  • Economic evaluations
  • GRADE
  • Health technology assessment
  • Quality of evidence
  • Risk of bias

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Epidemiology

Cite this

Brunetti, M., Shemilt, I., Pregno, S., Vale, L., Oxman, A. D., Lord, J., ... Schünemann, H. J. (2013). GRADE guidelines: 10. Considering resource use and rating the quality of economic evidence. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 66(2), 140-150. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2012.04.012

GRADE guidelines : 10. Considering resource use and rating the quality of economic evidence. / Brunetti, Massimo; Shemilt, Ian; Pregno, Silvia; Vale, Luke; Oxman, Andrew D.; Lord, Joanne; Sisk, Jane; Ruiz, Francis; Hill, Suzanne; Guyatt, Gordon H.; Jaeschke, Roman; Helfand, Mark; Harbour, Robin; Davoli, Marina; Amato, Laura; Liberati, Alessandro; Schünemann, Holger J.

In: Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, Vol. 66, No. 2, 02.2013, p. 140-150.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Brunetti, M, Shemilt, I, Pregno, S, Vale, L, Oxman, AD, Lord, J, Sisk, J, Ruiz, F, Hill, S, Guyatt, GH, Jaeschke, R, Helfand, M, Harbour, R, Davoli, M, Amato, L, Liberati, A & Schünemann, HJ 2013, 'GRADE guidelines: 10. Considering resource use and rating the quality of economic evidence', Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, vol. 66, no. 2, pp. 140-150. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2012.04.012
Brunetti, Massimo ; Shemilt, Ian ; Pregno, Silvia ; Vale, Luke ; Oxman, Andrew D. ; Lord, Joanne ; Sisk, Jane ; Ruiz, Francis ; Hill, Suzanne ; Guyatt, Gordon H. ; Jaeschke, Roman ; Helfand, Mark ; Harbour, Robin ; Davoli, Marina ; Amato, Laura ; Liberati, Alessandro ; Schünemann, Holger J. / GRADE guidelines : 10. Considering resource use and rating the quality of economic evidence. In: Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 2013 ; Vol. 66, No. 2. pp. 140-150.
@article{c529db9ab5f04b65afaefba7d985efca,
title = "GRADE guidelines: 10. Considering resource use and rating the quality of economic evidence",
abstract = "Objectives: In this article, we describe how to include considerations about resource utilization when making recommendations according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. Study Design and Settings: We focus on challenges with rating the confidence in effect estimates (quality of evidence) and incorporating resource use into evidence profiles and Summary of Findings (SoF) tables. Results: GRADE recommends that important differences in resource use between alternative management strategies should be included along with other important outcomes in the evidence profile and SoF table. Key steps in considering resources in making recommendations with GRADE are the identification of items of resource use that may differ between alternative management strategies and that are potentially important to decision makers, finding evidence for the differences in resource use, making judgments regarding confidence in effect estimates using the same criteria used for health outcomes, and valuing the resource use in terms of costs for the specific setting for which recommendations are being made. Conclusions: With our framework, decision makers will have access to concise summaries of recommendations, including ratings of the quality of economic evidence, and better understand the implications for clinical decision making.",
keywords = "Costs, Economic evaluations, GRADE, Health technology assessment, Quality of evidence, Risk of bias",
author = "Massimo Brunetti and Ian Shemilt and Silvia Pregno and Luke Vale and Oxman, {Andrew D.} and Joanne Lord and Jane Sisk and Francis Ruiz and Suzanne Hill and Guyatt, {Gordon H.} and Roman Jaeschke and Mark Helfand and Robin Harbour and Marina Davoli and Laura Amato and Alessandro Liberati and Sch{\"u}nemann, {Holger J.}",
year = "2013",
month = "2",
doi = "10.1016/j.jclinepi.2012.04.012",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "66",
pages = "140--150",
journal = "Journal of Clinical Epidemiology",
issn = "0895-4356",
publisher = "Elsevier USA",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - GRADE guidelines

T2 - 10. Considering resource use and rating the quality of economic evidence

AU - Brunetti, Massimo

AU - Shemilt, Ian

AU - Pregno, Silvia

AU - Vale, Luke

AU - Oxman, Andrew D.

AU - Lord, Joanne

AU - Sisk, Jane

AU - Ruiz, Francis

AU - Hill, Suzanne

AU - Guyatt, Gordon H.

AU - Jaeschke, Roman

AU - Helfand, Mark

AU - Harbour, Robin

AU - Davoli, Marina

AU - Amato, Laura

AU - Liberati, Alessandro

AU - Schünemann, Holger J.

PY - 2013/2

Y1 - 2013/2

N2 - Objectives: In this article, we describe how to include considerations about resource utilization when making recommendations according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. Study Design and Settings: We focus on challenges with rating the confidence in effect estimates (quality of evidence) and incorporating resource use into evidence profiles and Summary of Findings (SoF) tables. Results: GRADE recommends that important differences in resource use between alternative management strategies should be included along with other important outcomes in the evidence profile and SoF table. Key steps in considering resources in making recommendations with GRADE are the identification of items of resource use that may differ between alternative management strategies and that are potentially important to decision makers, finding evidence for the differences in resource use, making judgments regarding confidence in effect estimates using the same criteria used for health outcomes, and valuing the resource use in terms of costs for the specific setting for which recommendations are being made. Conclusions: With our framework, decision makers will have access to concise summaries of recommendations, including ratings of the quality of economic evidence, and better understand the implications for clinical decision making.

AB - Objectives: In this article, we describe how to include considerations about resource utilization when making recommendations according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. Study Design and Settings: We focus on challenges with rating the confidence in effect estimates (quality of evidence) and incorporating resource use into evidence profiles and Summary of Findings (SoF) tables. Results: GRADE recommends that important differences in resource use between alternative management strategies should be included along with other important outcomes in the evidence profile and SoF table. Key steps in considering resources in making recommendations with GRADE are the identification of items of resource use that may differ between alternative management strategies and that are potentially important to decision makers, finding evidence for the differences in resource use, making judgments regarding confidence in effect estimates using the same criteria used for health outcomes, and valuing the resource use in terms of costs for the specific setting for which recommendations are being made. Conclusions: With our framework, decision makers will have access to concise summaries of recommendations, including ratings of the quality of economic evidence, and better understand the implications for clinical decision making.

KW - Costs

KW - Economic evaluations

KW - GRADE

KW - Health technology assessment

KW - Quality of evidence

KW - Risk of bias

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84871275040&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84871275040&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2012.04.012

DO - 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2012.04.012

M3 - Article

VL - 66

SP - 140

EP - 150

JO - Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

JF - Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

SN - 0895-4356

IS - 2

ER -