0

The full content of Annals is available to subscribers

Subscribe/Learn More  >
Academia and the Profession |

The Quality of Reporting in Published Cost-Utility Analyses, 1976–1997

Peter J. Neumann, ScD; Patricia W. Stone, PhD, MPH, RN; Richard H. Chapman, SM; Eileen A. Sandberg, SM, MBA; and Chaim M. Bell, MD
[+] Article and Author Information

From Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts; University of Rochester, Rochester, New York; and University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.


For definitions of terms, see Glossary at end of text.

Acknowledgments: The authors thank Vijay Ramakrishnan for research assistance and Marc Berger, John Graham, Jim Hammitt, Steven Teutsch, Milton Weinstein, and Albert Wertheimer for helpful comments on earlier drafts of this manuscript.

Grant Support: By a joint award from the National Science Foundation and Merck & Co., Inc. under the Joint NSF/Private Research Opportunity Initiative (SBR-9730448). Dr. Bell is funded through a fellowship from the Medical Research Council of Canada.

Requests for Single Reprints: Peter J. Neumann, ScD, Harvard School of Public Health, 718 Huntington Avenue, 2nd Floor, Boston, MA 02115; e-mail, pneumann@hsph.harvard.edu.

Requests To Purchase Bulk Reprints (minimum, 100 copies): the Reprints Coordinator; phone, 215-351-2657; e-mail, reprints@mail.acponline.org.

Current Author Addresses: Dr. Neumann, Mr. Chapman, and Ms. Sandberg: Harvard School of Public Health, 718 Huntington Avenue, 2nd Floor, Boston, MA 02115.

Dr. Stone: University of Rochester, School of Nursing, and Department of Community and Preventive Medicine, 601 Elmwood Avenue, Box SON, Rochester, NY 14642-8404.

Dr. Bell: Clinical Epidemiology Unit, Sunnybrook and Women's Health Science Centre, Toronto, Ontario M4N 3M5, Canada.


Ann Intern Med. 2000;132(12):964-972. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-132-12-200006200-00007
Text Size: A A A

Purpose: Cost-utility analysis is a type of cost-effectiveness analysis in which health effects are measured in terms of quality-adjusted life-years [QALYs] gained. Such analyses have become popular for examining the health and economic consequences of health and medical interventions, and they have been recommended by leaders in the field. These recommendations emphasize the importance of good reporting practices. This study determined 1) the quality of reporting in published cost–utility analyses through 1997 and 2) whether reporting practices have improved over time. We examined quality of reporting by journal type and number of cost–utility analyses a journal has published.

Data Sources: Computerized databases were searched through 1997 for the Medical Subject Headings or text keywords quality-adjusted, QALY, and cost–utility analysis. Published bibliographies of the field were also searched.

Study Selection: Original cost–utility analyses written in English were included. Cost-effectiveness analyses that measured health effects in units other than QALYs and review, editorial, or methodologic articles were excluded.

Data Extraction: Each of the 228 articles found was audited independently by two trained readers who used a standard data collection form to determine the quality of reporting in several categories: disclosure of funding, framing, reporting of costs, reporting of preference weights, reporting of results, and discussion.

Results: The number of cost–utility analyses in the medical literature increased greatly between 1976 and 1997. Analyses covered a wide range of diseases and interventions. Most studies listed modeling assumptions (82%), described the comparator intervention (83%), reported sensitivity analysis (89%), and noted study limitations (84%). Only 52% clearly stated the study perspective; 34% did not disclose the funding source. Methods of reporting costs and preference weights varied widely. The quality of published analyses improved slightly over time and was higher in general clinical journals and in journals that published more of these analyses.

Conclusions: The study results reveal an active and evolving field but also underscore the need for more consistency and clarity in reporting. Better peer review and independent, third-party audits may help in this regard. Future investigations should examine the quality of clinical and economic assumptions used in cost–utility analyses, in addition to whether analysts followed recommended protocols for performance and reporting.

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Figure.
Increase in the number of published cost–utility analyses, 1976–1997.

Numbers on top of the bars are exact numbers of studies.

Grahic Jump Location

Tables

References

Letters

NOTE:
Citing articles are presented as examples only. In non-demo SCM6 implementation, integration with CrossRef’s "Cited By" API will populate this tab (http://www.crossref.org/citedby.html).

Comments

Submit a Comment
Submit a Comment

Summary for Patients

Clinical Slide Sets

Terms of Use

The In the Clinic® slide sets are owned and copyrighted by the American College of Physicians (ACP). All text, graphics, trademarks, and other intellectual property incorporated into the slide sets remain the sole and exclusive property of the ACP. The slide sets may be used only by the person who downloads or purchases them and only for the purpose of presenting them during not-for-profit educational activities. Users may incorporate the entire slide set or selected individual slides into their own teaching presentations but may not alter the content of the slides in any way or remove the ACP copyright notice. Users may make print copies for use as hand-outs for the audience the user is personally addressing but may not otherwise reproduce or distribute the slides by any means or media, including but not limited to sending them as e-mail attachments, posting them on Internet or Intranet sites, publishing them in meeting proceedings, or making them available for sale or distribution in any unauthorized form, without the express written permission of the ACP. Unauthorized use of the In the Clinic slide sets will constitute copyright infringement.

Toolkit

Buy Now

to gain full access to the content and tools.

Want to Subscribe?

Learn more about subscription options

Advertisement
Related Articles
Topic Collections
PubMed Articles
Forgot your password?
Enter your username and email address. We'll send you a reminder to the email address on record.
(Required)
(Required)