OBJECTIVES: Quality appraisal (QA) of primary studies of HSUVs is a highly relevant process to evaluate the certainty of the HSUVs estimated in the literature and summarised in the systematic literature reviews (SLRs). However, only a few SLRs authors appraise the quality of contributing HSUVs studies. This review aims to elucidate the nature of QA in SRLs of HSUVs and list the QA items used.

METHODS: A rapid review was conducted in PubMed from 01.01.2015 to 15.05.2021. SLRs of empirical HSUVs studies published in English were included. We extracted and reviewed descriptive data, including QA items and methods of incorporating QA results into study findings. Additionally, QA tools, checklists, and good practice recommendations (GPRs) used or cited were extracted. Frequencies of use and occurrence of QA items, acceptance and counterfactual acceptance rates (CAR) were computed. A list of QA dimensions and items used was generated.

RESULTS: 68 SLRs were included, comprising 84 items. 38 out of the 68 SLRs analysed appraised the quality of individual studies (prevalence = 56%). A considerable number of the SLRs (42%) used the recommendations from NICE and ISPOR as guidelines. Response rates, loss of follow-up and sample size were evaluated the most, used in 26, 21 and 20 SLRs, respectively. Acceptance rates were 100% in two studies and 53% and 33% in two other SLRs that used QA to inform the data analysis. The mean CAR was 55% (median 53% and IQR 56%).

CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of QA in the SLRs of HSUVs appears low. Also, the QA dimensions and items included in both SLRs and extracted tools vary widely. The most attributable reason for these findings is the current lack of a widely accepted QA tool for primary studies of HSUVs. This underscores the need to systematically develop a QA that has the potential to be widely accepted.