Westminster International University in Tashkent, Tashkent, Uzbekistan; Tashkent Pharmaceutical Institute, Tashkent, Uzbekistan; Toronto Health Economics and Technology Assessment Collaborative, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada. Electronic address: firstname.lastname@example.org.
There is an increasing number of Russian economic evaluation studies in oncology, the scope and quality of which are unknown.
This study aimed to assess the scope and quality of economic evaluations in oncology, with the goal of elucidating implications for improving their use in Russia.
Online databases were searched for oncologic economic evaluations written in Russian. Data were extracted and assessed with the Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES) instrument. In addition, the QHES was modified to overcome double-barreled items in a single criterion.
Of 29 articles identified, 15 met study criteria and were included in the review. Most studies analyzed cost-effectiveness of first- and second-line therapies for lung and kidney cancer. The others analyzed prostate, breast, and colorectal cancers and lymphoma. The QHES mean quality score for the reviewed studies was 74 (and 69 with the modified tool). Comparison of the quality of different study types revealed that cost utility studies and studies that used decision trees and Markov models had the highest mean quality score. Clear statements regarding bias, study limitations, uncertainty, study perspectives, and funding source were commonly absent in the reviewed studies.
Our review indicates that oncologic economic evaluations published in Russian are limited in scope and number. In addition, they demonstrate opportunities for improvement in several important technical areas.