Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7czq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T14:10:26.841Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A TOOL TO IMPROVE QUALITY OF REPORTING PUBLISHED ECONOMIC ANALYSES

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 May 2001

Karen Gerard ,
Janelle Seymour  and
Irenie Smoker
Karen Gerard
Affiliation:
Centre for Health Economics Research and Evaluation (CHERE), University of Sydney
Janelle Seymour
Affiliation:
Health Economics Research Unit (HERU), University of Aberdeen and CHERE, University of Sydney
Irenie Smoker
Affiliation:
New South Wales Department of Health
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objectives: To test the feasibility of obtaining a baseline level of quality of reporting for cost-utility analysis (CUA) studies using the British Medical Journal economic submissions checklist, test interrater reliability of this tool, and discuss its longer term implications.

Methods: CUA studies in peer-reviewed English language journals in 1996, assessed using the British Medical Journal checklist, a quality index, and interrater reliability correlations.

Results: Forty-three CUA studies were assessed, with 23 checklist items acceptable and 10 items inadequate. Lowest quality scores were reported in specialist medical journals. Proportional agreement between assessors was over 80%.

Conclusions: The British Medical Journal checklist is a feasible tool to collect baseline information on the quality of reporting in journals other than the British Medical Journal. Editors of specialist medical journals are in greatest need of economic guidance. If handled carefully, they might consider adopting the British Medical Journal checklist.

Keywords

Cost-utility analysisEconomic evaluationguidelinesReporting standardsResearch in practice
Type
Research Article
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 16 , Issue 1 , January 2000 , pp. 100 - 110
Copyright
© 2000 Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)