Skip to main content

Table 2 Characteristics of the included studies

From: Cost-effectiveness of lung cancer screening and treatment methods: a systematic review of systematic reviews

Reference Aim of study No. of all publications included Meta-Analysis Time Horizon covered Quality assessment tool Screening or treatment
Clegg, Scott et al. 2001 [84] Examines the cost-effectiveness of four of the newer drugs –vinorelbine, gemcitabine, paclitaxel and docetaxel used for treating the most common type of lung cancer (non-small-cell lung cancer). 16 NO 1995–2000 appended appraisal questions treatment
Lange, Prenzler et al. 2014 [85] review and assess the economic evidence of treatments with targeted agents in advanced: Non-small cell lung cancer 19 NO 2000–2013 The Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES) treatment
Bongers, Coupe et al. 2012 [86] comparing the new agents docetaxel, paclitaxel, vinorelbine, gemcitabine and pemetrexed, and the targeted therapies erlotinib and gefitinib with one another 10 NO 2001–2010 British Medical Journal (BMJ) 35-item checklist treatment
Raymakers, Mayo et al. 2016 [87] cost-effectiveness of lung cancer screening using low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) 13 NO 2000–2014 Drummond checklist Screening
Maher, Miake-Lye et al. 2012 [88] cost and cost-effectiveness of the different approaches in Treatment of Metastatic Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer 22 NO 1996–2010 - treatment
Brown, Pilkington et al. 2013[89] Cost-effectiveness of first-line chemotherapy for patients with advanced and/or metastatic NSCLC. 6 NO 1980–2010 35-item list described by Drummond and Jefferson treatment
Cao, Rodrigues et al. 2012[90] describing cost-effectiveness of positron-emission tomography(PET) in staging of non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and management of solitary pulmonary nodules (SPN) 18 NO 1950–2010 Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES) Screening
Black, Bagust et al. 2006 [58] examine the cost-effectiveness of screening for lung cancer using computed tomography (CT) 6 NO 1994–2005 checklist developed by Drummond and colleagues Screening