Table 4 Data sources from 35 studies for the six domains of evidence ranked by six levels of hierarchies of evidence by the number of sources, ranked evidence level (high, medium, low), and proportion of all sources at that evidence level (%)
Data domain | Rank | Source (n) | Evidence Level | Level % |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Epidemiology | Â | Â | Â | Â |
Case series or analysis of reliable administrative databases specifically conducted for the study covering patients solely from the jurisdiction of interest | 1 | 9 | High | 80 |
Recent case series or analysis of reliable administrative databases covering patients solely from the jurisdiction of interest | 2 | 32 | ||
Recent case series or analysis of reliable administrative databases covering patients solely from another jurisdiction | 3 | 8 | Medium | 16 |
Old case series or analysis of reliable administrative databases. Estimates from RCTs | 4 | 0 | Low | 4 |
Estimates from previously published economic analyses: unsourced | 5 | 1 | ||
Expert opinion | 6 | 1 | ||
Total (34 studies) | Â | 51 | ||
Effectiveness | Â | Â | Â | Â |
Meta-analysis of RCTs with direct comparison between comparator therapies, measuring final outcomes | 1 + a | 30 | High | 85 |
Single RCT with direct comparison between comparator therapies, measuring final outcomes | 1 | 18 | ||
Meta-analysis of RCTs with direct comparison between comparator therapies, measuring surrogate* outcomes Meta-analysis of placebo-controlled RCTs with similar trial populations, measuring the final outcomes for each individual therapy | 2 + a | 7 | ||
Single RCT with direct comparison between comparator therapies, measuring the surrogate* outcomes Single placebo-controlled RCTs with similar trial populations, measuring the final outcomes for each individual therapy | 2 | 12 | ||
Meta-analysis of placebo-controlled RCTs with similar trial populations, measuring the surrogate* outcomes | 3 + a | 3 | Medium | 4 |
Single placebo-controlled RCTs with similar trial populations, measuring the surrogate* outcomes for each individual therapy | 3 | 0 | ||
Case control or cohort studies | 4 | 5 | Low | 11 |
Non-analytic studies, for example, case reports, case series | 5 | 4 | ||
Expert opinion | 6 | 0 | ||
Total (35 studies) | Â | 79 | Â | Â |
Resources & service use | Â | Â | Â | Â |
Prospective data collection or analysis of reliable administrative data for specific study | 1 | 9 | High | 74 |
Recently published results of prospective data collection or recent analysis of reliable administrative data – same jurisdiction | 2 | 30 | ||
Unsourced data from previous economic evaluations – same jurisdiction | 3 | 1 | Medium | 2 |
Expert opinion | 4 | 3 | Low | 25 |
Recently published results of prospective data collection or recent analysis of reliable administrative data – different jurisdiction | 5 | 10 | ||
Unsourced data from previous economic evaluation – different jurisdiction | 6 | 0 | ||
Total (35 studies) | Â | 53 | Â | Â |
Costs | Â | Â | Â | Â |
Cost calculations based on reliable databases or data sources conducted for specific study – same jurisdiction | 1 | 18 | High | 78 |
Recently published cost calculations based on reliable databases or data source – same jurisdiction | 2 | 45 | ||
Unsourced data from previous economic evaluation – same jurisdiction | 3 | 2 | Medium | 2 |
Expert opinion | 4 | 5 | Low | 20 |
Recently published cost calculations based on reliable databases or data sources – different jurisdiction | 5 | 11 | ||
Unsourced data from previous economic evaluation – different jurisdiction | 6 | 0 | ||
Total (35 studies) | Â | 81 | Â | Â |
Outcome (Utility) | Â | Â | Â | Â |
Direct utility assessment for the specific study from a sample either: (a) of the general population; (b) with knowledge of the disease(s) of interest; (c) of patients with the disease(s) of interest Indirect utility assessment from specific study from patient sample with disease(s) of interest, using a tool validated for the patient population | 1 | 8 | High | 43 |
Indirect utility assessment from a patient sample with disease(s) of interest, using a tool not validated for the patient population | 2 | Â | ||
Direct utility assessment from a previous study from a sample either: (a) of the general population; (b) with knowledge of the disease(s) of interest; (c) of patients with the disease(s) of interest Indirect utility assessment from previous study from patient sample with disease(s) of interest, using a tool validated for the patient population | 3 | 5 | Medium | 57 |
Unsourced utility data from previous study – method of elicitation unknown | 4 | 17 | Low | 0 |
Patient preference values obtained from a visual analogue scale | 5 | 0 | ||
Delphi panels, expert opinion | 6 | 0 | ||
Total (24 studies) | Â | 30 | Â | Â |
Equity | Â | Â | Â | Â |
Case series or analysis of reliable administrative databases specifically conducted for the study covering patients solely from the jurisdiction of interest | 1 | 0 | High | 67 |
Recent case series or analysis of reliable administrative databases covering patients solely from the jurisdiction of interest | 2 | 10 | ||
Recent case series or analysis of reliable administrative databases covering patients solely from another jurisdiction | 3 | 4 | Medium | 27 |
Old case series or analysis of reliable administrative databases. Estimates from RCTs | 4 | 1 | Â Low | 7 |
Estimates from previously published economic analyses: unsourced | 5 | 0 | ||
Expert opinion | 6 | 0 | ||
Total (12 studies) | Â | 15 | Â | Â |