Presenting systematic reviews template

• Previous
• Next

The template is to ensure systematic reviews presented to working groups (WGs) and NACI are standardized, understandable, and of the highest quality.

See in PDF format the Presentation template for presenting systematic reviews.

Slide 1:

Title of systematic review of economic evaluations
[should clearly represent the study question]

Presentation to [WG/ NACI] on [Date] Author Names and Affiliations

Can include logos, as desired, to identify affiliation of authors.

Slide 2:

Conflicts of interest and funding

• List any potential conflicts of interest for each author (including financial and intellectual). If there are no potential conflicts of interest, a statement to that effect must be included.
  • ex. Author A: No conflicts of interest.
• Describe how the study was funded and the role of the funder in the identification, design, conduct, and reporting of the analysis. Describe other non-monetary sources.

Slide: 3

Research question

• Defined in terms of PICO(TS): population, intervention, comparator(s), outcome(s) of interest; and where relevant, timing, type of study, and setting.

Slide 4:

Background [optional]

Slide 5:

Methods

[Please keep to 1-2 slides.]

Search strategy:

• State time frame searched & rationale (if applicable).

Inclusion and exclusion criteria:

• Please list.

Reporting:

• Outcomes are reported in CAD [index year].

If any methods diverged from the NACI Guidelines, please briefly describe here (in terms of the search strategy, appraisal tools used, etc.)

Slide 6:

Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) flow diagram

• This slide marks the beginning of the "Results" section.
• Please provide diagram.

Slide 7:

Overview of included studies (n = )

Study characteristics

• Countries/ jurisdictions (n = )
• Model-based (n = ) versus non-model-based (n = )
• Studies funded by industry (n = )
• Years of publication
• Etc.

Population characteristics

• Relevance to PICO of interest (i.e., age, health condition, comparator, etc.)

Slide 8:

I. Overview of non-model studies (n = )

[such as trial-based studies, studies based on admin data, etc.]

• Comparators
• Perspective
• Types of sensitivity analysis
• Sample size(s)
• Time horizon(s)
• Choice of effectiveness outcomes/intermediate outcomes
• Analysis: comment on protocol driven care vs. clinical practice; how missing/censored/skewed data were handled
• Etc.

Slide 9:

II. Overview of model-based studies (n = )

• Types of models (i.e., Markov, agent-based, etc.)
  • Comment on model structure, if possible (i.e., what were the health states).
• Perspective(s) used
• Time horizon(s) used
• Types of sensitivity analyses conducted
• Assessment of study quality
• Etc.

Slide 10:

III. Models: key model parameters

• Provide the average and range of some key model parameters.
  • Mandatory variables to report: vaccine cost, vaccine efficacy/ effectiveness, epidemiology (i.e., incidence)
  • Influential parameters
  • Etc.
• For face validity.

Slide 11:

Summary of results

• Report clinical outcomes, cost outcomes, and ICER outcomes in graphical or tabular form.
  • Consider disaggregating outcomes
  • Specify if the ICERs are sequential or against a reference case (specify comparator)
• Consider presenting key parameters (i.e., vaccine price, vaccine effectiveness, epidemiology) alongside results.
• Consider presenting sensitivity analyses (i.e., deterministic, probabilistic).
• See guidelines for example tables.

Slide 12:

Slide 13:

Example results table #2

Slide 14:

Stratified results [or subgroup analyses]

• Present results by industry vs. public health agency vs. recognized funding agency.
• May consider presenting by study perspective (i.e., healthcare vs. societal).
• May consider presenting by poor quality vs. not.
• May provide range of results or brief description.

Slide 15:

Canadian studies (n = )

• State key findings.
• Compare results to non-Canadian studies.
• Industry funding (n = ).
• Discuss study quality and applicability to PICO of interest.

Slide 16:

Key findings and discussion

• What is the take-home message for decision-makers?
  • Consider reporting on results of studies most relevant to decision-makers (i.e., highest quality studies, high quality Canadian studies)
  • Avoid stating policy implications and any references to explicit or implicit cost- effectiveness thresholds. Policy implications are the responsibility of NACI.
    • For example, reviewers may not say "Based on the SR, the intervention appears to be cost- effective". Reviewers may say "Most included studies (N = 9) concluded that the intervention is cost-effective based on their respective regional thresholds used"
• Was there a consensus among studies? Were the studies too heterogeneous?
• Recap: List the most influential parameters reported by included studies.
• Recap: Comment on study quality.

Slide 17:

Strengths and limitations

• Of the included studies (i.e., Were disease dynamics appropriately captured? Were the data sources appropriate?).
• Of the systematic review itself.

Slide 18:

Applicability

• Comment on applicability (e.g., populations and comparators assessed, regional differences in terms of disease epidemiology, population characteristics, clinical practice patterns, resource-use patterns, unit costs, and other factors of relevance). Where differences exist, discuss the impact on the results (expected direction and magnitude), and the conclusions.
  • Key parameters to discuss are vaccine price, vaccine effectiveness, and epidemiology.
• Consider using the Applicability Tools to guide your discussion.

Slide 19:

References

Slide 20:

Supplementary material

• Previous
• Next