signpost iconEconomic impact of different preparations of leuprolide acetate in the management of advanced prostate cancer

Authors: Odeyemi I A, Berges R, Bolodeoku J

Bottom Line:

The Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD) conclude that the evidence presented supports the authors' conclusions of the review

Publication details:

CRD have evaluated this review and support the author's conclusions: " The study results support the switch to the 6-monthly preparation. Switching from the 3-monthly to 6-monthly preparation would save the German authorities EUR 9.1 million a year. The calculated savings would increase to EUR 55.6 million per year if all patients were previously receiving the 1-monthly preparation. The authors also suggested that countries with health systems such as the Netherlands and the UK would benefit from significant cost-savings as a result of switching from the 3- to 6-monthly preparation of leuprolide acetate in the treatment of prostate cancer patients."

We assessed this page using an appraisal instrument developed by Minervation specifically for this project. This approach is still in development, so you should regard the assessments as a general guide. Click here to find out more, or to let us know how you think the approach could be improved.

Reliability comments:

  • Website content is checked by relevant experts
  • It is clear who has produced this website
  • The methodology used is stated

Usability comments:

  • The page is long.
  • A bottom-line is required.
  • Graphics would be appropriate
  • The website does not conform to web accessibility standards
  • Search facility could be improved

Scoring

Reliability
Item Score
Is it clear who has developed the web site and what their objectives are? 3
There is a brief description on the homepage about what CRD do, and there is an About Us section.
Does the site report a robust quality control procedure? 3
CRD state their methodology used to produce their reviews and the DARE database.
Is the page content checked by an expert? 3
Website content is checked by relevant experts
Is the page updated regularly? 2
This is an evaluation of a study published in 2007
Does the page cite relevant sources where appropriate? 3
The page cites relevant sources.
Usability
Item Score
Is the site accessible without a login? 3
No registration required.
Does the site conform to web Accessibility standards? 0
Lida score 87%
Is the site design clear and transparent? 1
The homepage is uncluttered but the small font size of the main menu lets it down. The menu headings may not be clearly understood by users. Knowledge of who CRD is, is required to use this site best.
Is the site design consistent from one page to another? 2
The design is mostly consistent except that the font size changes quite a bit from readable to unreadable!
Can users find what they need on the site? 1
It is possible to browse CRD's publications by topic, although a health topic menu on the homepage would be better. There is a search box, results are displayed reasonable well, but it is unclear how they are ranked. Users need to know to search the databases separately to find additional relevant information for prostate cancer. Prostate cancer doesn't appear in their site map either.
Is the format of information clear and appropriate for the audience? 1
The page is long. A bottom-line is required. Graphics would be appropriate
Weighted total (Usability + (Reliability x 2)): 36
We score each question out of three where:
0 = Never or Can't tell
1 = Sometimes or partly
2 = Mostly
3 = Always

Date rated

Source

Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD)

Currency

Adequate

Audience

Professionals

Publication Type

Critically appraised topic

Format

Webpage

Reliability

5 stars

Usability

1.5 stars

Find: Similar

Contact us about this summary

Your comment or question:
G6H3KW