Table 4 |
||
|
Reporting quality of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) economic evaluations and comparable results of similar reviews in conventional medicine |
||
|
Items from the BMJ Checklist [30] (Indented items apply only to a subset of studies) |
Review of CAM Studies N (%) |
Reviews of Conventional Medicine Studies N (%) |
|
|
||
|
Study design |
||
|
(1) The research question is stated |
39 (74) |
43 (16)* |
|
(2) The economic importance of the research question is stated |
39 (51) |
|
|
(3) The perspective of the analysis is stated |
39 (33) |
228 (52)† |
|
(4) The rationale for choosing the alternatives is stated |
39 (69) |
|
|
(5) The alternatives being compared are clearly described |
39 (74) |
228 (83)† |
|
(6) The form of economic evaluation used is stated |
39 (49) |
|
|
(7) The choice of form of economic evaluation is justified |
39 (3) |
43 (7)* |
|
Data collection |
||
|
(8) The source(s) of effectiveness estimates are stated |
38 (100) |
|
|
(9) Details of the effectiveness study are given |
36 (94) |
|
|
or (10) Details of the review or meta-analysis are given |
2 (50) |
|
|
(11) Primary outcome measures are clearly stated |
39 (95) |
|
|
(12) Methods to value health states are stated |
4 (100) |
228 (75)† 43 (79)‡ |
|
(13) Details of the subjects from which values were obtained are given |
4 (25) |
228 (76)† 43 (46)‡ |
|
(14) Productivity changes are reported separately |
8 (88) |
|
|
(15) The relevance of productivity changes is discussed |
8 (25) |
|
|
(16) Quantities of resources are reported separately from unit costs |
39 (67) |
43 (19)‡ |
|
(17) Methods for the estimation of quantities and unit costs are described |
39 (67) |
|
|
(18) Currency and year are recorded |
39 (41) |
228 (68)† |
|
(19) Details of adjustments for inflation or currency conversion are given |
39 (21) |
43 (21)* |
|
(20) Details of any model used are given |
3 (100) |
|
|
(21) The choice of the model and its key parameters are justified |
3 (100) |
|
|
Analysis and interpretation of results |
||
|
(22) Time horizon of costs and benefits is stated |
39 (100) |
|
|
(23) The discount rate is stated |
4 (50) |
228 (65)† |
|
(24) The choice of discount rate is justified |
4 (25) |
43 (16)* 34 (21)‡ |
|
(25) An explanation is given if costs and benefits not discounted |
4 (50) |
8 (12)‡ |
|
(26) Details of statistical tests and confidence intervals are given for stochastic data |
38 (87) |
|
|
(27) The approach to sensitivity analysis is given |
5 (100) |
43 (2)* |
|
(28) The choice of variables for sensitivity analysis is justified |
5 (40) |
39 (79)‡ |
|
(29) The ranges over which variables are varied are stated |
5 (100) |
228 (57)† 38 (66)‡ |
|
(30) Relevant alternatives are compared |
39 (36) |
228 (57)† |
|
(31) Incremental analysis is reported |
13 (54) |
228 (46)† |
|
(32) Major outcomes are presented disaggregated and aggregated |
39 (85) |
|
|
(33) The answer to the study question is given |
39 (69) |
|
|
(34) Conclusions follow from the data reported |
39 (100) |
|
|
(35) Conclusions are accompanied by the appropriate caveats |
39 (67) |
228 (84)† |
|
|
||
|
* Comparable estimates available from Jefferson et al, 1998 [83]. † Comparable estimates available from Neumann, 2004 [6], a systematic review of cost-utility analyses. ‡ Comparable estimates available from Gerard et al, 2000 [84], a systematic review of cost-utility analyses. |
||
|
Herman et al. BMC Complementary and Alternative Medicine 2005 5:11 doi:10.1186/1472-6882-5-11 |
||
