Objective It conducted a rapid health technology assessment to evaluate the comparative safety,efficacy and economy of tumor treating fields(TTFields)combined with temozolomide treatment versus temozolomide(TMZ)alone for patients with glioblastoma(GBM).Methods It provided an extensive electronic search of databases,including PubMed,Embase,Cochrane Library,CNKI,and WanFang Data,to collect clinical evidence and health economic evaluations related to the,safety,efficacy,and economy of TTFields for Glioblastoma patients.The search covered literature from inception to July,2023,and assessed the risk of bias in the included studies.Descriptive analyses and data summaries were performed.Results A total of 19 references were included,comprising 5 randomized controlled trials,3 retrospective studies,8 systematic reviews or meta-analyses,and 3 cost-effectiveness analysis(CEA)studies.The quality of the literature evidence was heterogeneous.Recent meta-analyses mostly support the conclusion that TTFields combined with TMZ treatment provides a survival benefit compared to standard TMZ alone.However,the cost-effectiveness analysis literature from 2 countries showed different results,likely due to differences in socioeconomic levels,health systems,and heterogeneity in sources,model selection,and parameter selection.The majority of evidence supports the benefits of TTFields combined with TMZ for the treatment of GBM patients,but the results of CEAs tend to favor the view that this therapy is not cost-effective.Conclusion Current evidence indicates that TTFields combined with TMZ treatment have better safety and efficacy.However,there is still no consensus on whether it is cost-effective.

Objective:To explore the health economic evaluation methods of disease screening,providing insights for scholars conducting related research.Methods:By integrating relevant content from modem epidemiology,health statistics,and health economics,it investigates the differences in conducting health economic evaluations of disease screening using authenticity indicators(sensitivity,specificity)and predictive value indicators(positive predictive value,negative predictive value),and combines empirical studies with cases from the literature.Results:Authenticity indicators(sensitivity,specificity)are intrinsic measures of diagnostic tests,unaffected by the disease prevalence in the sample population,making them more suitable for conducting health economic evaluations of disease screening.Moreover,authenticity indicators are easy to obtain,and the model calculations are straightforward and convenient.Case study results demonstrate that compared to risk score screening,the Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratio(ICER)of fasting plasma glucose(FPG)testing for type 2 diabetes is 626,indicating that for every additional diabetic patient identified through risk score screening,an extra 626 yuan is spent.Conclusion:It is recommended to use authenticity indicators for conducting health economic evaluations of disease screening,standardize the path methods for model selection,and continuously improve the evidence quality of health economic evaluations of disease screening in China.

Objective It conducted a rapid health technology assessment to evaluate the comparative safety,efficacy and economy of tumor treating fields(TTFields)combined with temozolomide treatment versus temozolomide(TMZ)alone for patients with glioblastoma(GBM).Methods It provided an extensive electronic search of databases,including PubMed,Embase,Cochrane Library,CNKI,and WanFang Data,to collect clinical evidence and health economic evaluations related to the,safety,efficacy,and economy of TTFields for Glioblastoma patients.The search covered literature from inception to July,2023,and assessed the risk of bias in the included studies.Descriptive analyses and data summaries were performed.Results A total of 19 references were included,comprising 5 randomized controlled trials,3 retrospective studies,8 systematic reviews or meta-analyses,and 3 cost-effectiveness analysis(CEA)studies.The quality of the literature evidence was heterogeneous.Recent meta-analyses mostly support the conclusion that TTFields combined with TMZ treatment provides a survival benefit compared to standard TMZ alone.However,the cost-effectiveness analysis literature from 2 countries showed different results,likely due to differences in socioeconomic levels,health systems,and heterogeneity in sources,model selection,and parameter selection.The majority of evidence supports the benefits of TTFields combined with TMZ for the treatment of GBM patients,but the results of CEAs tend to favor the view that this therapy is not cost-effective.Conclusion Current evidence indicates that TTFields combined with TMZ treatment have better safety and efficacy.However,there is still no consensus on whether it is cost-effective.

Objective:To explore the health economic evaluation methods of disease screening,providing insights for scholars conducting related research.Methods:By integrating relevant content from modem epidemiology,health statistics,and health economics,it investigates the differences in conducting health economic evaluations of disease screening using authenticity indicators(sensitivity,specificity)and predictive value indicators(positive predictive value,negative predictive value),and combines empirical studies with cases from the literature.Results:Authenticity indicators(sensitivity,specificity)are intrinsic measures of diagnostic tests,unaffected by the disease prevalence in the sample population,making them more suitable for conducting health economic evaluations of disease screening.Moreover,authenticity indicators are easy to obtain,and the model calculations are straightforward and convenient.Case study results demonstrate that compared to risk score screening,the Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratio(ICER)of fasting plasma glucose(FPG)testing for type 2 diabetes is 626,indicating that for every additional diabetic patient identified through risk score screening,an extra 626 yuan is spent.Conclusion:It is recommended to use authenticity indicators for conducting health economic evaluations of disease screening,standardize the path methods for model selection,and continuously improve the evidence quality of health economic evaluations of disease screening in China.

Objective It conducted a rapid health technology assessment to evaluate the comparative safety,efficacy and economy of tumor treating fields(TTFields)combined with temozolomide treatment versus temozolomide(TMZ)alone for patients with glioblastoma(GBM).Methods It provided an extensive electronic search of databases,including PubMed,Embase,Cochrane Library,CNKI,and WanFang Data,to collect clinical evidence and health economic evaluations related to the,safety,efficacy,and economy of TTFields for Glioblastoma patients.The search covered literature from inception to July,2023,and assessed the risk of bias in the included studies.Descriptive analyses and data summaries were performed.Results A total of 19 references were included,comprising 5 randomized controlled trials,3 retrospective studies,8 systematic reviews or meta-analyses,and 3 cost-effectiveness analysis(CEA)studies.The quality of the literature evidence was heterogeneous.Recent meta-analyses mostly support the conclusion that TTFields combined with TMZ treatment provides a survival benefit compared to standard TMZ alone.However,the cost-effectiveness analysis literature from 2 countries showed different results,likely due to differences in socioeconomic levels,health systems,and heterogeneity in sources,model selection,and parameter selection.The majority of evidence supports the benefits of TTFields combined with TMZ for the treatment of GBM patients,but the results of CEAs tend to favor the view that this therapy is not cost-effective.Conclusion Current evidence indicates that TTFields combined with TMZ treatment have better safety and efficacy.However,there is still no consensus on whether it is cost-effective.

Objective:To explore the health economic evaluation methods of disease screening,providing insights for scholars conducting related research.Methods:By integrating relevant content from modem epidemiology,health statistics,and health economics,it investigates the differences in conducting health economic evaluations of disease screening using authenticity indicators(sensitivity,specificity)and predictive value indicators(positive predictive value,negative predictive value),and combines empirical studies with cases from the literature.Results:Authenticity indicators(sensitivity,specificity)are intrinsic measures of diagnostic tests,unaffected by the disease prevalence in the sample population,making them more suitable for conducting health economic evaluations of disease screening.Moreover,authenticity indicators are easy to obtain,and the model calculations are straightforward and convenient.Case study results demonstrate that compared to risk score screening,the Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratio(ICER)of fasting plasma glucose(FPG)testing for type 2 diabetes is 626,indicating that for every additional diabetic patient identified through risk score screening,an extra 626 yuan is spent.Conclusion:It is recommended to use authenticity indicators for conducting health economic evaluations of disease screening,standardize the path methods for model selection,and continuously improve the evidence quality of health economic evaluations of disease screening in China.

Objective It conducted a rapid health technology assessment to evaluate the comparative safety,efficacy and economy of tumor treating fields(TTFields)combined with temozolomide treatment versus temozolomide(TMZ)alone for patients with glioblastoma(GBM).Methods It provided an extensive electronic search of databases,including PubMed,Embase,Cochrane Library,CNKI,and WanFang Data,to collect clinical evidence and health economic evaluations related to the,safety,efficacy,and economy of TTFields for Glioblastoma patients.The search covered literature from inception to July,2023,and assessed the risk of bias in the included studies.Descriptive analyses and data summaries were performed.Results A total of 19 references were included,comprising 5 randomized controlled trials,3 retrospective studies,8 systematic reviews or meta-analyses,and 3 cost-effectiveness analysis(CEA)studies.The quality of the literature evidence was heterogeneous.Recent meta-analyses mostly support the conclusion that TTFields combined with TMZ treatment provides a survival benefit compared to standard TMZ alone.However,the cost-effectiveness analysis literature from 2 countries showed different results,likely due to differences in socioeconomic levels,health systems,and heterogeneity in sources,model selection,and parameter selection.The majority of evidence supports the benefits of TTFields combined with TMZ for the treatment of GBM patients,but the results of CEAs tend to favor the view that this therapy is not cost-effective.Conclusion Current evidence indicates that TTFields combined with TMZ treatment have better safety and efficacy.However,there is still no consensus on whether it is cost-effective.

Objective:To explore the health economic evaluation methods of disease screening,providing insights for scholars conducting related research.Methods:By integrating relevant content from modem epidemiology,health statistics,and health economics,it investigates the differences in conducting health economic evaluations of disease screening using authenticity indicators(sensitivity,specificity)and predictive value indicators(positive predictive value,negative predictive value),and combines empirical studies with cases from the literature.Results:Authenticity indicators(sensitivity,specificity)are intrinsic measures of diagnostic tests,unaffected by the disease prevalence in the sample population,making them more suitable for conducting health economic evaluations of disease screening.Moreover,authenticity indicators are easy to obtain,and the model calculations are straightforward and convenient.Case study results demonstrate that compared to risk score screening,the Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratio(ICER)of fasting plasma glucose(FPG)testing for type 2 diabetes is 626,indicating that for every additional diabetic patient identified through risk score screening,an extra 626 yuan is spent.Conclusion:It is recommended to use authenticity indicators for conducting health economic evaluations of disease screening,standardize the path methods for model selection,and continuously improve the evidence quality of health economic evaluations of disease screening in China.

Objective It conducted a rapid health technology assessment to evaluate the comparative safety,efficacy and economy of tumor treating fields(TTFields)combined with temozolomide treatment versus temozolomide(TMZ)alone for patients with glioblastoma(GBM).Methods It provided an extensive electronic search of databases,including PubMed,Embase,Cochrane Library,CNKI,and WanFang Data,to collect clinical evidence and health economic evaluations related to the,safety,efficacy,and economy of TTFields for Glioblastoma patients.The search covered literature from inception to July,2023,and assessed the risk of bias in the included studies.Descriptive analyses and data summaries were performed.Results A total of 19 references were included,comprising 5 randomized controlled trials,3 retrospective studies,8 systematic reviews or meta-analyses,and 3 cost-effectiveness analysis(CEA)studies.The quality of the literature evidence was heterogeneous.Recent meta-analyses mostly support the conclusion that TTFields combined with TMZ treatment provides a survival benefit compared to standard TMZ alone.However,the cost-effectiveness analysis literature from 2 countries showed different results,likely due to differences in socioeconomic levels,health systems,and heterogeneity in sources,model selection,and parameter selection.The majority of evidence supports the benefits of TTFields combined with TMZ for the treatment of GBM patients,but the results of CEAs tend to favor the view that this therapy is not cost-effective.Conclusion Current evidence indicates that TTFields combined with TMZ treatment have better safety and efficacy.However,there is still no consensus on whether it is cost-effective.

Objective:To explore the health economic evaluation methods of disease screening,providing insights for scholars conducting related research.Methods:By integrating relevant content from modem epidemiology,health statistics,and health economics,it investigates the differences in conducting health economic evaluations of disease screening using authenticity indicators(sensitivity,specificity)and predictive value indicators(positive predictive value,negative predictive value),and combines empirical studies with cases from the literature.Results:Authenticity indicators(sensitivity,specificity)are intrinsic measures of diagnostic tests,unaffected by the disease prevalence in the sample population,making them more suitable for conducting health economic evaluations of disease screening.Moreover,authenticity indicators are easy to obtain,and the model calculations are straightforward and convenient.Case study results demonstrate that compared to risk score screening,the Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratio(ICER)of fasting plasma glucose(FPG)testing for type 2 diabetes is 626,indicating that for every additional diabetic patient identified through risk score screening,an extra 626 yuan is spent.Conclusion:It is recommended to use authenticity indicators for conducting health economic evaluations of disease screening,standardize the path methods for model selection,and continuously improve the evidence quality of health economic evaluations of disease screening in China.