Table 7 Quality of health economic studies framework
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 |