Thinni Nurul Rochmah, - and Indana Tri Rahmawati, - and Maznah Dahlui, - and Wasis Budiarto, - and Nabilah Bilqis, - (2022) Reply to Shaikh et al. Comment on “Rochmah et al. Economic Burden of Stroke Disease: A Systematic Review. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19. pp. 1-3. ISSN 1660-4601

	Text (Full Text) 2_Artikel.pdf Download (3MB)
	Text (Kesesuaian Bidang Ilmu) 2_Kesesuaian.pdf Download (1MB)
	Text (Korespondensi) 2_korespondensi.pdf Download (875kB)
	Text (Turnitin) 2_Turnitin.pdf Download (835kB)

Abstract

In this systematic review, we followed the PECOS framework (participant or pop-ulation, exposure, context, and outcome measures) and had listed the inclusion criteria with enough keywords so that we would not miss articles that are related to economic evaluation of stroke management. We observed that articles on economic evaluation of disease management use various methods and present the economic evaluation findings in various forms, such as different cost perspectives, different types of cost—direct or indirect, and variation in the inclusiveness of cost (procedure, activity or total management cost). We wanted to capture any cost in relation to stroke management and thus purposely did not list exclusion criteria. We believed that without including exclusion criteria, we could get a more extensive and complete (comprehensive) search of relevant articles. The comprehensive results enabled us to provide an overview for the mapping of the various study designs, costing methods, cost inclusiveness, cost perspectives and other economic outcome of stroke management. We realize that our explanation in the exclusion criteria section is lacking which may have led to this misunderstanding

Actions (login required)

View Item