Iskedjian M, Trakas K, Bradley C A, Addis A, Lanctôt K, Kruk D, Ilersich A L, Einarson T R
Faculty of Pharmacy, University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Pharmacoeconomics. 1997 Dec;12(6):685-94. doi: 10.2165/00019053-199712060-00008.
Our objective was to assess the quality of reporting of original economic research articles in PharmacoEconomics from inception to the end of 1995, in order to identify areas of strength and weakness, and analyse trends over time. Each regular issue of the journal was examined for original economic evaluations. Accepted articles were categorised by study type and by year of publication. A previously developed 13-item quality-scoring checklist was applied. The maximum possible score that an article could be assigned was 4.0. Quality scores were analysed over time and by study type. 54 articles were identified for analysis. Mean overall score (OS) ranged from a minimum of 1.80 to a maximum of 3.75, with a mean OS of 3.01 [standard deviation (SD) = 0.47]. The item with the highest mean score was the 'definition of study aim' (mean OS = 3.46, SD = 0.69). The item with the lowest score was 'ethical problems discussed and identified' (mean OS = 1.44, SD = 0.92). Only 4 items on the checklist had mean scores lower than 3.0. No significant time trend was apparent for OS (R2 = 0.002). Cost-benefit (mean OS = 3.25, SD = 0.85, n = 5), cost-effectiveness (mean OS = 3.11, SD = 0.97, n = 27), and cost-utility (mean OS = 3.29, SD = 0.93, n = 6) analyses had mean scores significantly higher than cost-analysis/cost-of-illness studies (mean OS = 2.51, SD = 1.14, n = 8). The mean OS for cost-minimisation studies was 2.74 (SD = 0.49, n = 8). Despite some weaknesses in particular aspects of economic evaluations published in PharmacoEconomics, we conclude that the journal has offered publications with acceptable overall quality and adequate methodology.
我们的目标是评估1995年全年《药物经济学》中原发性经济研究文章的报告质量，以确定其优势和薄弱环节，并分析随时间推移的趋势。对该期刊的每一期常规刊物进行原发性经济评估检查。录用的文章按研究类型和发表年份进行分类。应用了先前制定的包含13项内容的质量评分清单。一篇文章可能获得的最高分数为4.0分。对质量得分进行了时间和研究类型方面的分析。共确定了54篇文章用于分析。总体平均得分（OS）最低为1.80，最高为3.75，平均OS为3.01[标准差（SD）=0.47]。平均得分最高的项目是“研究目的的定义”（平均OS=3.46，SD=0.69）。得分最低的项目是“讨论并确定的伦理问题”（平均OS=1.44，SD=0.92）。清单上只有4个项目的平均得分低于3.0。OS没有明显的时间趋势（R2=0.002）。成本效益分析（平均OS=3.25，SD=0.85，n=5）、成本效果分析（平均OS=3.11，SD=0.97，n=27）和成本效用分析（平均OS=3.
