Expert review of pharmacoeconomics & outcomes research
-
Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res · Aug 2021
Artificial intelligence in outcomes research: a systematic scoping review.
Introduction: Despite the number of systematic reviews of how artificial intelligence is being used in different areas of medicine, there is no study on the scope of artificial intelligence methods used in outcomes research, the cornerstone of health technology assessment (HTA). This systematic scoping review aims to systematically capture the scope of artificial intelligence methods used in outcomes research to enhance decision-makers' knowledge and broaden perspectives for health technology assessment and adoption. Areas covered: The review identified 370 studies, consisted of artificial intelligence methods applied to adult patients who underwent any health/medical intervention and reported therapeutic, preventive, or prognostic outcomes. ⋯ The predictive analysis was common in neoplastic disorders. Neural networks algorithm was predominantly found in surgical method studies, but a mixture of artificial intelligence algorithms was applied to the studies with the rest of the interventions. Expert opinion: There are certain gaps in artificial intelligence applications used in outcomes research across therapeutic areas and further considerations are needed by decision-makers before incorporating artificial intelligence usage into HTA decision-making processes.
-
Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res · Aug 2021
Comparative StudyCost-effectiveness analyses comparing cemented, cementless, hybrid and reverse hybrid fixation in total hip arthroplasty: a systematic overview and critical appraisal of the current evidence.
Background: This study aims to present an overview and critical appraisal of all previous studies comparing costs and outcomes of the different modes of fixation in total hip arthroplasty (THA). A secondary aim is to provide conclusions regarding the most cost-effective mode of implant fixation per gender and age-specific population in THA, based on high quality studies. Methods: A systematic search was conducted to identify cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) comparing different modes of implant fixation in THA. ⋯ Conclusion: Currently available well performed CEAs generally support the use of cemented and hybrid fixation for all age-groups relevant for THA and both genders. However, these findings were mainly based on a single database and depended on assumptions made in the studies' methodology. Issues discussed in this paper have to be considered and future work is needed.