Quality of health economic evaluations in emergency medicine journals: a systematic review.

IF 2 4区 医学 Q2 EMERGENCY MEDICINE
Canadian Journal of Emergency Medicine Pub Date : 2023-08-01 Epub Date: 2023-06-30 DOI:10.1007/s43678-023-00535-w
Shawn Chhabra, Austin Cameron, Kednapa Thavorn, Lindsey Sikora, Krishan Yadav
{"title":"Quality of health economic evaluations in emergency medicine journals: a systematic review.","authors":"Shawn Chhabra,&nbsp;Austin Cameron,&nbsp;Kednapa Thavorn,&nbsp;Lindsey Sikora,&nbsp;Krishan Yadav","doi":"10.1007/s43678-023-00535-w","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Health economic evaluations are used in decision-making regarding resource allocation and it is imperative that they are completed with rigor. The primary objectives were to describe the characteristics and assess the quality of economic evaluations published in emergency medicine journals.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Two reviewers independently searched 19 emergency medicine-specific journals via Medline and Embase from inception until March 3, 2022. Quality assessment was completed using the Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES) tool, and the primary outcome was the QHES score out of 100. Additionally, we identified factors that may contribute to higher-quality publications.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>7260 unique articles yielded 48 economic evaluations that met inclusion criteria. Most studies were cost-utility analyses and of high quality, with a median QHES score of 84 (interquartile range, IQR: 72, 90). Studies based on mathematical models and those primarily designed as an economic evaluation were associated with higher quality scores. The most commonly missed QHES items were: (i) providing and justifying the perspective of the analysis, (ii) providing justification for the primary outcome, and (iii) selecting an outcome that was long enough to allow for relevant events to occur.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The majority of health economic evaluations in the emergency medicine literature are cost-utility analyses and are of high quality. Decision analytic models and studies primarily designed as economic analyses were positively correlated with higher quality. To improve study quality, future EM economic evaluations should justify the choice of the perspective of the analysis and the selection of the primary outcome.</p>","PeriodicalId":55286,"journal":{"name":"Canadian Journal of Emergency Medicine","volume":"25 8","pages":"676-688"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Canadian Journal of Emergency Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s43678-023-00535-w","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/6/30 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EMERGENCY MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Objective: Health economic evaluations are used in decision-making regarding resource allocation and it is imperative that they are completed with rigor. The primary objectives were to describe the characteristics and assess the quality of economic evaluations published in emergency medicine journals.

Methods: Two reviewers independently searched 19 emergency medicine-specific journals via Medline and Embase from inception until March 3, 2022. Quality assessment was completed using the Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES) tool, and the primary outcome was the QHES score out of 100. Additionally, we identified factors that may contribute to higher-quality publications.

Results: 7260 unique articles yielded 48 economic evaluations that met inclusion criteria. Most studies were cost-utility analyses and of high quality, with a median QHES score of 84 (interquartile range, IQR: 72, 90). Studies based on mathematical models and those primarily designed as an economic evaluation were associated with higher quality scores. The most commonly missed QHES items were: (i) providing and justifying the perspective of the analysis, (ii) providing justification for the primary outcome, and (iii) selecting an outcome that was long enough to allow for relevant events to occur.

Conclusions: The majority of health economic evaluations in the emergency medicine literature are cost-utility analyses and are of high quality. Decision analytic models and studies primarily designed as economic analyses were positively correlated with higher quality. To improve study quality, future EM economic evaluations should justify the choice of the perspective of the analysis and the selection of the primary outcome.

急诊医学期刊的健康经济评价质量:一项系统综述。
目标:卫生经济评估用于资源分配决策,必须严格完成。主要目的是描述急诊医学期刊上发表的经济评估的特点并评估其质量。方法:从创刊到2022年3月3日,两名评审员通过Medline和Embase独立检索了19种急诊医学专用期刊。使用健康经济研究质量(QHES)工具完成质量评估,主要结果是QHES评分为100分。此外,我们还确定了可能有助于提高出版物质量的因素。结果:7260篇独特的文章产生了48项符合纳入标准的经济评价。大多数研究都是高质量的成本效用分析,平均QHES得分为84(四分位间距,IQR:72,90)。基于数学模型的研究和那些主要设计为经济评估的研究与更高的质量分数有关。最常见的遗漏QHES项目是:(i)提供并证明分析的观点,(ii)为主要结果提供理由,以及(iii)选择一个足够长的结果,以允许相关事件发生。结论:急诊医学文献中的大多数健康经济评价都是成本效用分析,质量较高。决策分析模型和主要设计为经济分析的研究与更高的质量呈正相关。为了提高研究质量,未来的新兴市场经济评估应该证明分析视角的选择和主要结果的选择是合理的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Canadian Journal of Emergency Medicine
Canadian Journal of Emergency Medicine Medicine-Emergency Medicine
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
12.50%
发文量
171
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: CJEM is a peer-reviewed journal owned by CAEP. CJEM is published every 2 months (January, March, May, July, September and November). CJEM presents articles of interest to emergency care providers in rural, urban or academic settings. Publishing services are provided by the Canadian Medical Association.
×
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