Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorAzar, FE
dc.contributor.authorAzami-Aghdash, S
dc.contributor.authorPournaghi-Azar, F
dc.contributor.authorMazdaki, A
dc.contributor.authorRezapour, A
dc.contributor.authorEbrahimi, P
dc.contributor.authorYousefzadeh, N
dc.date.accessioned2018-08-26T04:58:51Z
dc.date.available2018-08-26T04:58:51Z
dc.date.issued2017
dc.identifier.urihttp://dspace.tbzmed.ac.ir:8080/xmlui/handle/123456789/38792
dc.description.abstractDue to extensive literature in the field of lung cancer and their heterogeneous results, the aim of this study was to systematically review of systematic reviews studies which reviewed the cost-effectiveness of various lung cancer screening and treatment methods.In this systematic review of systematic reviews study, required data were collected searching the following key words which selected from Mesh: "lung cancer", "lung oncology", "lung Carcinoma", "lung neoplasm", "lung tumors", "cost- effectiveness", "systematic review" and "Meta-analysis". The following databases were searched: PubMed, Cochrane Library electronic databases, Google Scholar, and Scopus. Two reviewers (RA and A-AS) evaluated the articles according to the checklist of "assessment of multiple systematic reviews" (AMSTAR) tool.Overall, information of 110 papers was discussed in eight systematic reviews. Authors focused on cost-effectiveness of lung cancer treatments in five systematic reviews. Targeted therapy options (bevacizumab, Erlotinib and Crizotinib) show an acceptable cost-effectiveness. Results of three studies failed to show cost-effectiveness of screening methods. None of the studies had used the meta-analysis method. The Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES) tool and Drummond checklist were mostly used in assessing the quality of articles. Most perspective was related to the Payer (64 times) and the lowest was related to Social (11times). Most cases referred to Incremental analysis (82%) and also the lowest point of referral was related to Discounting (in 49% of the cases). The average quality score of included studies was calculated 9.2% from 11.Targeted therapy can be an option for the treatment of lung cancer. Evaluation of the cost-effectiveness of computerized tomographic colonography (CTC) in lung cancer screening is recommended. The perspective of the community should be more taken into consideration in studies of cost-effectiveness. Paying more attention to the topic of Discounting will be necessary in the studies.
dc.language.isoEnglish
dc.relation.ispartofBMC health services research
dc.subjectAntineoplastic Agents
dc.subjectCost-Benefit Analysis
dc.subjectEarly Detection of Cancer
dc.subjectHumans
dc.subjectLung Neoplasms
dc.subjectMeta-Analysis as Topic
dc.subjectReview Literature as Topic
dc.subjectTomography, X-Ray Computed
dc.titleCost-effectiveness of lung cancer screening and treatment methods: a systematic review of systematic reviews.
dc.typearticle
dc.citation.volume17
dc.citation.issue1
dc.citation.spage413
dc.citation.indexPubmed
dc.identifier.DOIhttps://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-017-2374-1


Files in this item

FilesSizeFormatView

There are no files associated with this item.

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record