Quality of systematic reviews of economic evaluations in health care

T. Jefferson, V. Demicheli, Luke David Vale

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

94 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Context Reviews performed almost a decade ago showed considerable gaps in the quality of reporting and methods applied to economic evaluations of health care interventions. Measures taken by the research community to address the issue included the promulgation of guidelines and the publicizing of good practice in economic evaluation.

Methods To assess the quality of methods of systematic reviews, economic evaluations in health care, and reporting methods, we conducted full-text searches of private and public databases for the period 1990 through March 2001 and corresponded with researchers active in the field. A total of 102 reports were identified, but only 39 were included. Quality of systematic reviews was assessed by a 6-item checklist.

Results Quality of review methods was reasonable, but more attention needs to be paid to search methods and standardization of evaluation instruments. The reviews found consistent evidence of serious methodological flaws in a significant number of economic evaluations. Lack of clear descriptions of methods, lack of explanation and justification for the framework and approach used, and low-quality estimates of effectiveness for the interventions evaluated were the most frequent flaws. Modest improvements in quality of conducting and reporting economic evaluations appear to have taken place in the last decade.

Conclusions Proper allocation of resources on the basis of economic evaluations remains uncertain. Editorial teams and regulatory bodies should perform quality assurance based on a single widely accepted and validated standard instrument.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)2809-2812
Number of pages3
JournalJAMA
Volume287
Issue number21
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2002

Keywords

  • COST-UTILITY ANALYSES
  • OF-THE-ART
  • PHARMACOECONOMIC ANALYSES
  • RECOMMENDATIONS
  • INTERVENTIONS
  • SUBMISSIONS
  • VACCINATION
  • GUIDELINES
  • VALUATION
  • MEDICINE

Cite this

Jefferson, T., Demicheli, V., & Vale, L. D. (2002). Quality of systematic reviews of economic evaluations in health care. JAMA, 287(21), 2809-2812. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.287.21.2809

Quality of systematic reviews of economic evaluations in health care. / Jefferson, T.; Demicheli, V.; Vale, Luke David.

In: JAMA, Vol. 287, No. 21, 2002, p. 2809-2812.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Jefferson, T, Demicheli, V & Vale, LD 2002, 'Quality of systematic reviews of economic evaluations in health care', JAMA, vol. 287, no. 21, pp. 2809-2812. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.287.21.2809
Jefferson, T. ; Demicheli, V. ; Vale, Luke David. / Quality of systematic reviews of economic evaluations in health care. In: JAMA. 2002 ; Vol. 287, No. 21. pp. 2809-2812.
@article{a837c69db0cf48ddbc0bd9a8c6dd893d,
title = "Quality of systematic reviews of economic evaluations in health care",
abstract = "Context Reviews performed almost a decade ago showed considerable gaps in the quality of reporting and methods applied to economic evaluations of health care interventions. Measures taken by the research community to address the issue included the promulgation of guidelines and the publicizing of good practice in economic evaluation.Methods To assess the quality of methods of systematic reviews, economic evaluations in health care, and reporting methods, we conducted full-text searches of private and public databases for the period 1990 through March 2001 and corresponded with researchers active in the field. A total of 102 reports were identified, but only 39 were included. Quality of systematic reviews was assessed by a 6-item checklist.Results Quality of review methods was reasonable, but more attention needs to be paid to search methods and standardization of evaluation instruments. The reviews found consistent evidence of serious methodological flaws in a significant number of economic evaluations. Lack of clear descriptions of methods, lack of explanation and justification for the framework and approach used, and low-quality estimates of effectiveness for the interventions evaluated were the most frequent flaws. Modest improvements in quality of conducting and reporting economic evaluations appear to have taken place in the last decade.Conclusions Proper allocation of resources on the basis of economic evaluations remains uncertain. Editorial teams and regulatory bodies should perform quality assurance based on a single widely accepted and validated standard instrument.",
keywords = "COST-UTILITY ANALYSES, OF-THE-ART, PHARMACOECONOMIC ANALYSES, RECOMMENDATIONS, INTERVENTIONS, SUBMISSIONS, VACCINATION, GUIDELINES, VALUATION, MEDICINE",
author = "T. Jefferson and V. Demicheli and Vale, {Luke David}",
year = "2002",
doi = "10.1001/jama.287.21.2809",
language = "English",
volume = "287",
pages = "2809--2812",
journal = "JAMA",
issn = "0098-7484",
publisher = "American Medical Association",
number = "21",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Quality of systematic reviews of economic evaluations in health care

AU - Jefferson, T.

AU - Demicheli, V.

AU - Vale, Luke David

PY - 2002

Y1 - 2002

N2 - Context Reviews performed almost a decade ago showed considerable gaps in the quality of reporting and methods applied to economic evaluations of health care interventions. Measures taken by the research community to address the issue included the promulgation of guidelines and the publicizing of good practice in economic evaluation.Methods To assess the quality of methods of systematic reviews, economic evaluations in health care, and reporting methods, we conducted full-text searches of private and public databases for the period 1990 through March 2001 and corresponded with researchers active in the field. A total of 102 reports were identified, but only 39 were included. Quality of systematic reviews was assessed by a 6-item checklist.Results Quality of review methods was reasonable, but more attention needs to be paid to search methods and standardization of evaluation instruments. The reviews found consistent evidence of serious methodological flaws in a significant number of economic evaluations. Lack of clear descriptions of methods, lack of explanation and justification for the framework and approach used, and low-quality estimates of effectiveness for the interventions evaluated were the most frequent flaws. Modest improvements in quality of conducting and reporting economic evaluations appear to have taken place in the last decade.Conclusions Proper allocation of resources on the basis of economic evaluations remains uncertain. Editorial teams and regulatory bodies should perform quality assurance based on a single widely accepted and validated standard instrument.

AB - Context Reviews performed almost a decade ago showed considerable gaps in the quality of reporting and methods applied to economic evaluations of health care interventions. Measures taken by the research community to address the issue included the promulgation of guidelines and the publicizing of good practice in economic evaluation.Methods To assess the quality of methods of systematic reviews, economic evaluations in health care, and reporting methods, we conducted full-text searches of private and public databases for the period 1990 through March 2001 and corresponded with researchers active in the field. A total of 102 reports were identified, but only 39 were included. Quality of systematic reviews was assessed by a 6-item checklist.Results Quality of review methods was reasonable, but more attention needs to be paid to search methods and standardization of evaluation instruments. The reviews found consistent evidence of serious methodological flaws in a significant number of economic evaluations. Lack of clear descriptions of methods, lack of explanation and justification for the framework and approach used, and low-quality estimates of effectiveness for the interventions evaluated were the most frequent flaws. Modest improvements in quality of conducting and reporting economic evaluations appear to have taken place in the last decade.Conclusions Proper allocation of resources on the basis of economic evaluations remains uncertain. Editorial teams and regulatory bodies should perform quality assurance based on a single widely accepted and validated standard instrument.

KW - COST-UTILITY ANALYSES

KW - OF-THE-ART

KW - PHARMACOECONOMIC ANALYSES

KW - RECOMMENDATIONS

KW - INTERVENTIONS

KW - SUBMISSIONS

KW - VACCINATION

KW - GUIDELINES

KW - VALUATION

KW - MEDICINE

U2 - 10.1001/jama.287.21.2809

DO - 10.1001/jama.287.21.2809

M3 - Article

VL - 287

SP - 2809

EP - 2812

JO - JAMA

JF - JAMA

SN - 0098-7484

IS - 21

ER -