Economic analysis of randomized controlled trial data: a framework and feedlot cattle case study.

IF 2.7 2区 农林科学 Q1 AGRICULTURE, DAIRY & ANIMAL SCIENCE
Lucas M Horton, Dustin L Pendell, David G Renter
{"title":"Economic analysis of randomized controlled trial data: a framework and feedlot cattle case study.","authors":"Lucas M Horton, Dustin L Pendell, David G Renter","doi":"10.1093/jas/skaf105","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Livestock industry stakeholders rely on research, often randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to make evidence-based decisions. Economic implications of interventions are often a major deciding factor for adoption by producers. However, economic analyses in beef feedlot trials are infrequently conducted and often suffer from inconsistent methodologies. Gaps in planning, execution, and reporting of economic assessments underscore the need for guidance and standardized approaches in conducting economic evaluations on RCT data. Our objective was to compare and contrast methodologies for assessing costs and benefits associated with livestock health and production trials and to provide scientific guidance, rationale, and recommendations for future conduct of economic analyses on RCT data. Several types of economic analyses are frequently used by agricultural economists, including cash flow budgets, enterprise budgets, gross margin analysis, cost-benefit and -effectiveness analyses, and partial budgets. Partial budgeting emerges as the most pragmatic strategy for RCT data, focusing on the marginal impact of alternative interventions or management strategies, aligning well with RCT objectives. We provided an example of applying a partial budget to an RCT conducted at a commercial beef feedlot using published data. All observed data for relevant animal performance, health, and carcass variables were included, regardless of their original statistical significance. The budget was applied to each experimental unit (pen), with net return as the final outcome, and analyzed statistically using linear mixed models. While simple partial budgets use fixed prices that may not represent economic risk, incorporating statistical analyses at the pen-level accounts for biological variability and error in the estimates. When warranted, other strategies to account for economic risk (e.g., sensitivity analysis, stochastic simulation) can be incorporated within a partial budget framework. To encourage robust and transparent reporting, future research should explicitly state the type of economic assessment, the values and sources of all prices and the timeframe they represent, the methodology used, and how analyses were conducted. By adopting more consistent and transparent economic evaluation methods, researchers can enhance the applicability of RCT findings, ultimately supporting stakeholders in making economically sound decisions.</p>","PeriodicalId":14895,"journal":{"name":"Journal of animal science","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of animal science","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jas/skaf105","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"AGRICULTURE, DAIRY & ANIMAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Livestock industry stakeholders rely on research, often randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to make evidence-based decisions. Economic implications of interventions are often a major deciding factor for adoption by producers. However, economic analyses in beef feedlot trials are infrequently conducted and often suffer from inconsistent methodologies. Gaps in planning, execution, and reporting of economic assessments underscore the need for guidance and standardized approaches in conducting economic evaluations on RCT data. Our objective was to compare and contrast methodologies for assessing costs and benefits associated with livestock health and production trials and to provide scientific guidance, rationale, and recommendations for future conduct of economic analyses on RCT data. Several types of economic analyses are frequently used by agricultural economists, including cash flow budgets, enterprise budgets, gross margin analysis, cost-benefit and -effectiveness analyses, and partial budgets. Partial budgeting emerges as the most pragmatic strategy for RCT data, focusing on the marginal impact of alternative interventions or management strategies, aligning well with RCT objectives. We provided an example of applying a partial budget to an RCT conducted at a commercial beef feedlot using published data. All observed data for relevant animal performance, health, and carcass variables were included, regardless of their original statistical significance. The budget was applied to each experimental unit (pen), with net return as the final outcome, and analyzed statistically using linear mixed models. While simple partial budgets use fixed prices that may not represent economic risk, incorporating statistical analyses at the pen-level accounts for biological variability and error in the estimates. When warranted, other strategies to account for economic risk (e.g., sensitivity analysis, stochastic simulation) can be incorporated within a partial budget framework. To encourage robust and transparent reporting, future research should explicitly state the type of economic assessment, the values and sources of all prices and the timeframe they represent, the methodology used, and how analyses were conducted. By adopting more consistent and transparent economic evaluation methods, researchers can enhance the applicability of RCT findings, ultimately supporting stakeholders in making economically sound decisions.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of animal science
Journal of animal science 农林科学-奶制品与动物科学
CiteScore
4.80
自引率
12.10%
发文量
1589
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: The Journal of Animal Science (JAS) is the premier journal for animal science and serves as the leading source of new knowledge and perspective in this area. JAS publishes more than 500 fully reviewed research articles, invited reviews, technical notes, and letters to the editor each year. Articles published in JAS encompass a broad range of research topics in animal production and fundamental aspects of genetics, nutrition, physiology, and preparation and utilization of animal products. Articles typically report research with beef cattle, companion animals, goats, horses, pigs, and sheep; however, studies involving other farm animals, aquatic and wildlife species, and laboratory animal species that address fundamental questions related to livestock and companion animal biology will be considered for publication.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信