% IMPORTANT: The following is UTF-8 encoded.  This means that in the presence
% of non-ASCII characters, it will not work with BibTeX 0.99 or older.
% Instead, you should use an up-to-date BibTeX implementation like “bibtex8” or
% “biber”.

@ARTICLE{Muchadeyi:289190,
      author       = {M. Muchadeyi$^*$ and K. Hernandez-Villafuerte$^*$ and G. L.
                      Di Tanna and R. Eckford$^*$ and Y. Feng and M. Meregaglia
                      and T. Peasgood and S. Petrou and J. Ubels$^*$ and M.
                      Schlander$^*$},
      title        = {{Q}uality {A}ppraisal in {S}ystematic {L}iterature
                      {R}eviews of {S}tudies {E}liciting {H}ealth {S}tate
                      {U}tility {V}alues: {C}onceptual {C}onsiderations.},
      journal      = {PharmacoEconomics},
      volume       = {42},
      number       = {7},
      issn         = {1170-7690},
      address      = {Berlin [u.a.]},
      publisher    = {Springer},
      reportid     = {DKFZ-2024-00624},
      pages        = {767-782},
      year         = {2024},
      note         = {#EA:C100#LA:C100# / 2024 Jul;42(7):767-782},
      abstract     = {The increasing number of studies that generate health state
                      utility values (HSUVs) and the impact of HSUVs on
                      cost-utility analyses make a robust tailored quality
                      appraisal (QA) tool for systematic reviews of these studies
                      necessary.This study aimed to address conceptual issues
                      regarding QA in systematic reviews of studies eliciting
                      HSUVs by establishing a consensus on the definitions,
                      dimensions and scope of a QA tool specific to this context.A
                      modified Delphi method was used in this study. An
                      international multidisciplinary panel of seven experts was
                      purposively assembled. The experts engaged in two anonymous
                      online survey rounds. After each round, the experts received
                      structured and controlled feedback on the previous phase.
                      Controlled feedback allowed the experts to re-evaluate and
                      adjust their positions based on collective insights.
                      Following these surveys, a virtual face-to-face meeting was
                      held to resolve outstanding issues. Consensus was defined a
                      priori at all stages of the modified Delphi process.The
                      response rates to the first-round and second-round
                      questionnaires and the virtual consensus meeting were
                      $100\%,$ $86\%$ and $71\%,$ respectively. The entire process
                      culminated in a consensus on the definitions of scientific
                      quality, QA, the three QA dimensions-reporting, relevance
                      and methodological quality-and the scope of a QA tool
                      specific to studies that elicit HSUVs.Achieving this
                      consensus marks a pivotal step towards developing a QA tool
                      specific to systematic reviews of studies eliciting HSUVs.
                      Future research will build on this foundation, identify QA
                      items, signalling questions and response options, and
                      develop a QA tool specific to studies eliciting HSUVs.},
      cin          = {C100},
      ddc          = {610},
      cid          = {I:(DE-He78)C100-20160331},
      pnm          = {313 - Krebsrisikofaktoren und Prävention (POF4-313)},
      pid          = {G:(DE-HGF)POF4-313},
      typ          = {PUB:(DE-HGF)16},
      pubmed       = {pmid:38551803},
      doi          = {10.1007/s40273-024-01365-z},
      url          = {https://inrepo02.dkfz.de/record/289190},
}