Cost-effectiveness of prehabilitation prior to elective surgery: A systematic review of economic evaluations

The aim of this systematic review was to synthesise the evidence on the cost-effectiveness of prehabilitation programmes for patients awaiting elective surgery compared with usual preoperative care to inform decisions about the implementation of prehabilitation programmes and to guide the design of future rigorous economic evaluations of prehabilitation programmes

Additional file 1 of Cost-effectiveness of prehabilitation of elderly frail or pre-frail patients prior to elective surgery (PRAEP-GO) versus usual care – Protocol for a health economic evaluation alongside a randomized controlled trial

Supplementary Material 1

Additional file 1 of Cost-effectiveness of prehabilitation prior to elective surgery: a systematic review of economic evaluations

Additional file 1: App1. Important changes made to the protocol. App2. Search strategies. App3. Data items. App4. List of excluded studies. App5. Characteristics of ongoing economic evaluations. App6. Funding and competing interest of included economic evaluations. App7. Methods of completed economic evaluations. App8. Methods of ongoing economic evaluations with a published protocol. App9. Description of prehabilitation programmes in ongoing studies. App10. Risk of bias and methodological quality of included economic evaluations. App11. Detailed costs results of included economic evaluations. App12. Results of adherence and safety outcomes. App13. Results of descriptive post-hoc subgroup analyses to explore heterogeneity in cost-effectiveness results

Guideline-based indicators for adult patients with myelodysplastic syndromes.

Myelodysplastic syndromes (MDSs) represent a heterogeneous group of hematological stem cell disorders with an increasing burden on health care systems. Evidence-based MDS guidelines and recommendations (G/Rs) are published but do not necessarily translate into better quality of care if adherence is not maintained in daily clinical practice. Guideline-based indicators (GBIs) are measurable elements for the standardized assessment of quality of care and, thus far, have not been developed for adult MDS patients. To this end, we screened relevant G/Rs published between 1999 and 2018 and aggregated all available information as candidate GBIs into a formalized handbook as the basis for the subsequent consensus rating procedure. An international multidisciplinary expert panel group (EPG) of acknowledged MDS experts (n = 17), health professionals (n = 7), and patient advocates (n = 5) was appointed. The EPG feedback rates for the first and second round were 82% (23 of 28) and 96% (26 of 27), respectively. A final set of 29 GBIs for the 3 domains of diagnosis (n = 14), therapy (n = 8), and provider/infrastructural characteristics (n = 7) achieved the predefined agreement score for selection (>70%). We identified shortcomings in standardization of patient-reported outcomes, toxicity, and geriatric assessments that need to be optimized in the future. Our GBIs represent the first comprehensive consensus on measurable elements addressing best practice performance, outcomes, and structural resources. They can be used as a standardized instrument with the goal of assessing, comparing, and fostering good quality of care within clinical development cycles in the daily care of adult MDS patients