Skip to main content

Table 7 Quality of health economic studies framework

From: Use of health economic evaluation in the implementation and improvement science fields—a systematic literature review

Number Question text Scoring
1 Was the study objectively presented in a clear, specific and measurable manner? Clear, specific, measurable = 7
Any two = 5
Any one = 2
None = 0
2 Was the perspective of the analysis (societal, third party, payer, etc.) and reasons for its selection stated? Perspective = 2
Reasons = 2
Both = 4
3 Were variable estimates used in the analysis from the best available source (i.e. randomised control trial—best, expert opinion—worst)? Randomised control trial = 8
Non-randomised control trial = 7
Cohort studies = 6
Case-control/case report/case series = 4
Expert opinion = 2
4 If estimates came from a subgroup analysis, were the groups prespecified at the beginning of the study? Yes = 1
No = 0
5 Was uncertainty handled by (1) statistical analysis to address random events, (2) sensitivity analysis to cover a range of assumptions? Statistical analysis = 4.5
Sensitivity analysis = 4.5
Both = 9
6 Was incremental analysis performed between alternatives for resources and costs? Yes = 6
No = 0
CCA type of economic evaluation = NA
7 Was the methodology for data extraction (including the value of health states and other benefits) stated? Yes = 5
No = 0
8 Did the analytic horizon allow time for all relevant and important outcomes? Were benefits and costs that went beyond 1 year discounted (3% to 5%) and justification given for the discount rate? (1) Time horizon = 3
(2) Cost discounting = 1
(3) Benefit discounting = 1
(4) Justification = 2
All but justification = 5
All = 7
9 Was the measurement of costs appropriate and the methodology for the estimation of quantities and unit costs clearly described? (1) Appropriateness of cost measurement = 4
(2) Clear description of methodology for the estimation of quantities = 2
(3) Clear description of methodology for the estimation of unit costs = 2
All = 8
10 Were the primary outcome measure(s) for the economic evaluation clearly stated and did they include the major short-term? Was justification given for the measures/scales used? (1) Primary outcome clearly stated = 2
(2) Include major short-term outcome = 2
(3) Justification = 2
All = 6
11 Were the health outcomes measures/scales valid and reliable? If previously tested valid and reliable measures were not available, was justification given for the measures/scales used? Yes = 7
No = 0
12 Were the economic model (including structure), study methods and analysis and the components of the numerator and denominator displayed in a clear, transparent manner? (1) Economic model = 2
(2) Study methods = 1.5
(3) Analysis = 1.5
(4) Components of numerator = 1.5
(5) Components of denominator = 1.5
All = 8
If not a modelling study, done for
(1) Study methods = 2
(2) Analysis = 2
(3) Components of numerator = 2
(4) Components of denominator = 2
All = 8
13 Were the choice of economic model, main assumptions and limitations of the study stated and justified? (1) Economic model = 2
(2) Assumptions = 2.5
(3) Limitations = 2.5
All = 7
If not a modelling study, done (stated and justified) for
(1) Assumptions = 3.5
(2) Limitations = 3.5
Both = 7
14 Did the author(s) explicitly discuss direction and magnitude of potential biases? (1) Direction = 3
(2) Magnitude = 3
Both = 6
15 Were the conclusions/recommendations of the study justified and based on the study results? Yes = 8
No = 0
16 Was there a statement disclosing the source of funding for the study? Yes = 3
No = 0