{"title":"A quality appraisal of economic evaluations of community water fluoridation: A systematic review.","authors":"J Cronin, S Moore, M Harding, H Whelton, N Woods","doi":"10.1922/CDH_00167Cronin11","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To critically appraise the methodological conduct and reporting quality of economic evaluations (EE) of community water fluoridation (CWF).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A systematic literature search was conducted in general databases and specialist directories of the economic literature. The Consensus on Health Economic Criteria list (CHEC) appraised the methodological quality while the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) assessed the reporting quality of included studies.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 1,138 records were identified, of which 18 met the inclusion criteria. Cost analysis emerged as the most prevalent type of EE, though a growing trend towards conducting full EEs is observed. CHEC revealed the items most frequently unfulfilled were the study design, measurement and valuation of costs and outcomes, while CHEERS also identified reporting deficiencies in these aspects. Furthermore, the review highlights subtleties in methodological aspects that may not be discerned by CHEC, such as the estimation of the impact of fluoridation and the inclusion of treatment savings within cost estimates.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>While numerous studies were conducted before publication of these assessment instruments, this review reveals that a noteworthy subset of studies exhibited good methodological conduct and reporting quality. There has been a steady improvement in the methodological and reporting quality over time, with recently published EEs largely adhering to best practice guidelines. The evidence presented will assist policymakers in leveraging the available evidence effectively to inform resource allocation decisions. It may also serve as a resource for researchers to enhance the methodological and reporting standards of future EEs of CWF.</p>","PeriodicalId":10647,"journal":{"name":"Community dental health","volume":" ","pages":"95-105"},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Community dental health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1922/CDH_00167Cronin11","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Objectives: To critically appraise the methodological conduct and reporting quality of economic evaluations (EE) of community water fluoridation (CWF).
Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted in general databases and specialist directories of the economic literature. The Consensus on Health Economic Criteria list (CHEC) appraised the methodological quality while the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) assessed the reporting quality of included studies.
Results: A total of 1,138 records were identified, of which 18 met the inclusion criteria. Cost analysis emerged as the most prevalent type of EE, though a growing trend towards conducting full EEs is observed. CHEC revealed the items most frequently unfulfilled were the study design, measurement and valuation of costs and outcomes, while CHEERS also identified reporting deficiencies in these aspects. Furthermore, the review highlights subtleties in methodological aspects that may not be discerned by CHEC, such as the estimation of the impact of fluoridation and the inclusion of treatment savings within cost estimates.
Conclusions: While numerous studies were conducted before publication of these assessment instruments, this review reveals that a noteworthy subset of studies exhibited good methodological conduct and reporting quality. There has been a steady improvement in the methodological and reporting quality over time, with recently published EEs largely adhering to best practice guidelines. The evidence presented will assist policymakers in leveraging the available evidence effectively to inform resource allocation decisions. It may also serve as a resource for researchers to enhance the methodological and reporting standards of future EEs of CWF.
期刊介绍:
The journal is concerned with dental public health and related subjects. Dental public health is the science and the art of preventing oral disease, promoting oral health, and improving the quality of life through the organised efforts of society.
The discipline covers a wide range and includes such topics as:
-oral epidemiology-
oral health services research-
preventive dentistry - especially in relation to communities-
oral health education and promotion-
clinical research - with particular emphasis on the care of special groups-
behavioural sciences related to dentistry-
decision theory-
quality of life-
risk analysis-
ethics and oral health economics-
quality assessment.
The journal publishes scientific articles on the relevant fields, review articles, discussion papers, news items, and editorials. It is of interest to dentists working in dental public health and to other professionals concerned with disease prevention, health service planning, and health promotion throughout the world. In the case of epidemiology of oral diseases the Journal prioritises national studies unless local studies have major methodological innovations or information of particular interest.