From: A framework for assessing Health Economic Evaluation (HEE) quality appraisal instruments
 | QHES instrument[21] | BMJ guidelines[22] | CHEC list[23] | Philips guidelines[24] |
---|---|---|---|---|
Author; year; journal | Chiou et al. 2003; Medical Care | Drummond, Jefferson; 1996; British Medical Journal (BMJ) | Evers et al. 2005; International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care | Philips et al. 2006; Pharmacoeconomics |
Affiliation of authors | Academia and industry | Academia | Academia | Academia |
Published in a peer-reviewed journal | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
Number of references | 35 | 48 | 30 | 22 |
Purpose | To provide a grading system for assessing the quality of health economic evaluations | To improve the transparency of reporting | To develop a generally accepted criteria list for assessing the methodology of economic evaluation studies in systematic reviews | To identify, review, and consolidate currently available guidelines in order to establish a synthesized and consistent quality assessment framework for decision analytic models |
Development process | Selection of criteria from 19 existing guidelines; Use of a conjoint analysis survey of 120 international experts to estimate weights for each criterion | Not specified | Selection of items from 15 existing guidelines; Use of a Delphi panel consisting of 23 international experts to generate the final criteria list | Selection and formulation of items by reviewing and consolidating 15 existing guidelines for good practice in decision-analytic modeling in HTA |
Time frame | Before, during and after peer review | Before, during, and after peer review | After peer review | Before, during, and after peer review |
Target audience | Producers and consumers of economic evaluations | Producers and consumers of economic evaluations | Consumers intending to conduct a systematic review of trial-based economic evaluations | Producers and consumers of model-based economic evaluations |
Preferred analytical technique | Full economic evaluations: cost-minimization-, cost-effectiveness-, cost-utility-, cost-benefit-analysis | Full economic evaluations: cost-minimization-, cost-effectiveness-, cost-utility-, cost-benefit-analysis | Full economic evaluations based on clinical trials: cohort studies, case–control studies, randomized controlled clinical trials | Full economic evaluations based on decision-analytic models |
Standard reporting format included | 16 questions which should be asked when appraising the quality of health economic evaluations | Ten sections under the three headings of study design, data collection, and analysis and interpretation of results: study question, selection of alternatives, form of evaluation, effectiveness data, benefit measurement and valuation, costing, modeling, adjustments for timing of costs and benefits, allowance for uncertainty, and presentation of results | 19 questions which should be asked when appraising the quality of health economic evaluations in systematic reviews | 15 sections under the three key themes of structure, data, and consistency: statement of decision problem/objective, statement of scope/ perspective, rationale for structure, structural assumptions, strategies/comparators, model type, time horizon, disease states/pathways, cycle length, data identification, pre-model data analysis, data incorporation, assessment of uncertainty, internal consistency, and external consistency |
Number of questions/criteria | 16 | 35 | 19 | 61 |
Operationalization of the questions/criteria | Yes/No | Yes/No/Not clear/Not appropriate | Yes/No | Yes/No/Unclear/Not applicable |
Use of a quality score | Yes | No | No | No |
Assessment instruction | No | Yes | Yes | |
Pilot test of the guideline | Yes: Ofman et al. [31] | Not specified | Yes, but no details given | Yes |