Objectives: This study aimed to conduct a systematic review of cost-utility studies of internet-based and face-to-face cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) for depression from childhood to adulthood and to examine their reporting and methodological quality. Methods: A structured search for cost-utility studies concerning CBT for depression was performed in 7 comprehensive databases from their inception to July 2020. Two reviewers independently screened the literature, abstracted data, and assessed quality using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards and Quality of Health Economic Studies checklists. The primary outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) across all studies. To make a relevant comparison of the ICERs across the identified studies, cost data were inflated to the year 2020 and converted into US dollars. Results: Thirty-eight studies were included in this review, of which 26 studies (68%) were deemed of high methodological quality and 12 studies (32%) of fair quality. Despite differences in study designs and settings, the conclusions of most included studies for adult depression were general agreement; they showed that face-to-face CBT monotherapy or combination therapy compared with antidepressants and usual care for adult depression were cost-effective from the societal, health system, or payer perspective (ICER $241 212.4/quality-adjusted life-year [QALY] to $33 032.47/QALY, time horizon 12-60 months). Internet-based CBT regardless of guided or unguided also has a significant cost-effectiveness advantage (ICER $37 717.52/QALY to $73 841.34/QALY, time horizon 3-36 months). In addition, CBT was cost-effective in preventing depression (ICER $23 932.07/QALY to $26 092.02/QALY, time horizon 9-60 months). Nevertheless, the evidence for the cost-effectiveness of CBT for children and adolescents was still ambiguous. Conclusions: Fair or high-quality evidence showed that CBT monotherapy or combination therapy for adult depression was cost-effective; whether CBT-related therapy was cost-effective for children and adolescents depression remains inconclusive.

Objective To comprehensively analyze the cost-utility of robotic surgery in clinical practice and to investigate the reporting and methodological quality of the related evidence. Methods Data on cost-utility analyses (CUAs) of robotic surgery were collected in seven electronic databases from the inception to July 2021. The quality of the included studies was assessed using the CHEERs and QHES checklists. A systematic review was performed with the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio as the outcome of interest. Results Thirty-one CUAs of robotic surgery were eligible. Overall, the identified CUAs were fair to high quality, and 63% of the CUAs ranked the cost-utility of robotic surgery as “favored,” 32% categorized as “reject,” and the remaining 5% ranked as “unclear.” Although a high heterogeneity was present in terms of the study design among the included CUAs, most studies (81.25%) consistently found that robotic surgery was more cost-utility than open surgery for prostatectomy (ICER: $6905.31/QALY to $26240.75/QALY; time horizon: 10 years or lifetime), colectomy (dominated by robotic surgery; time horizon: 1 year), knee arthroplasty (ICER: $1134.22/QALY to $1232.27/QALY; time horizon: lifetime), gastrectomy (dominated by robotic surgery; time horizon: 1 year), spine surgery (ICER: $17707.27/QALY; time horizon: 1 year), and cystectomy (ICER: $3154.46/QALY; time horizon: 3 months). However, inconsistent evidence was found for the cost-utility of robotic surgery versus laparoscopic surgery and (chemo)radiotherapy. Conclusions Fair or high-quality evidence indicated that robotic surgery is more cost-utility than open surgery, while it remains inconclusive whether robotic surgery is more cost-utility than laparoscopic surgery and (chemo)radiotherapy. Thus, an additional evaluation is required.

Background : Nutrition interventions have specific features that might warrant modifications to the methods used for economic evaluations of healthcare interventions. Aim : The aim of the article is to identify these features and when they challenge the use of cost-utility analysis (CUA). Methods : A critical review of the literature is conducted and a 2 by 2 classification matrix for nutrition interventions is proposed based on 1) who the main party responsible for the implementation and funding of the intervention is; and 2) who the target recipient of the intervention is. The challenges of conducting economic evaluations for each group of nutrition interventions are then analysed according to four main aspects: attribution of effects, measuring and valuing outcomes, inter-sectorial costs and consequences and equity considerations. Results and conclusions : CUA is appropriate for nutrition interventions when they are funded from the healthcare sector, have no (or modest) spill-overs to other sectors of the economy and have only (or mainly) health consequences. For other interventions, typically involving different government agencies, with cost implications for the private sector, with important wellbeing consequences outside health and with heterogeneous welfare effects across socio-economic groups, other economic evaluation methods need to be developed in order to offer valid guidance to policy making. For these interventions, checklists for critical appraisal of economic evaluations may require some substantial changes.

Authors' objectives: This health technology assessment evaluates the effectiveness, safety, and cost-effectiveness of skin substitutes for adults with diabetic foot ulcers and venous leg ulcers. It also evaluates the budget impact of publicly funding skin substitutes and the experiences, preferences, and values of people with diabetic foot ulcers and venous leg ulcers.

Authors' objectives: This health technology assessment evaluates the effectiveness, safety, and cost-effectiveness of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) for people with treatment-resistant depression (TRD). It also evaluates the budget impact of publicly funding rTMS and the experiences, preferences, and values of people withTRD.

Authors' objectives: This health technology assessment evaluates the effectiveness, safety, and cost-effectiveness of home narrowband ultraviolet B (NB-UVB) phototherapy compared with outpatient clinic NB-UVB phototherapy for people with photoresponsive skin conditions. It also evaluates the budget impact of publicly funding home NB-UVB phototherapy and the experiences, preferences, and values of people with photoresponsive skin conditions.

Authors' objectives: This health technology assessment looks at the effectiveness, safety, cost-effectiveness, budget impact, and patient experiences of compression stockings for prevention of venous leg ulcer recurrence.

Authors' objectives: This health technology assessment looked at the effectiveness, safety, cost-effectiveness, budget impact of publicly funding, and patient preferences and values associated with internet-delivered cognitive behavioural therapy (iCBT) for the treatment of mild to moderate major depression and anxiety disorders.

Authors' objectives: This health technology assessment evaluates the effectiveness, safety, and cost-effectiveness of osseointegrated prosthetic implants, compared with conventional socket prostheses, for people with a lower-limb amputation. It also evaluates the budget impact of publicly funding osseointegrated prosthetic implants for people with a lower-limb amputation and the experiences, preferences, and values of people with a lower-limb amputation.

Authors' objectives: The purpose of this health technology assessment (HTA) is to provide advice to the Minister for Health, the Department of Health and the Health Service Executive (HSE) on the implementation of a transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) pathway in the public health care system for patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis at low or intermediate risk of surgical complications.