Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Academic Medical Centre, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Am J Perinatol. 2013 Apr;30(4):253-60. doi: 10.1055/s-0032-1323591. Epub 2012 Aug 23.
We evaluated the methodological quality of economic evaluation studies in the field of obstetrics and gynecology published in the last decade. A MEDLINE search was performed to find economic evaluation studies in obstetrics and gynecology from the years 1997 through 2009. We included full economic evaluation studies concerning tests or interventions in the field of obstetrics or gynecology. Each included study was evaluated by two reviewers using a quality checklist that was based on international guidelines for medical economic evaluation studies and a checklist used in a previous review. The mean number of quality criteria adhered to was 23 of 30 items, whereas five articles (3%) met all 30 criteria. Compliance was low for the description of the perspective (40%), the completeness of costs looking at the perspective (48%) or time horizon (48%), and reporting of quantities of resources (47%). Furthermore, if no discounting was applied, an explanation was infrequently given (14%). A comparison of study quality to that reported by Smith and Blackmore showed a considerable improvement in the following criteria: presentation perspective (from 19 to 40%), statement of primary outcome measure (from 72 to 81%), completeness costs looking at the time horizon (from 14 to 48%), the presentation of discount rates (from 10 to 54%), details of sensitivity analyses (from 21 to 61%), reporting incremental results (from 17 to 70%), and reporting a summary measure (from 57 to 74%). The quality of economic studies in obstetrics and gynecology has considerably improved in the last decade, but room for further improvement is present.
我们评估了过去十年中发表的妇产科领域经济评估研究的方法学质量。通过 MEDLINE 搜索，我们找到了 1997 年至 2009 年期间妇产科的经济评估研究。我们纳入了关于妇产科测试或干预的完整经济评估研究。每篇纳入的研究均由两位评审员使用基于国际医疗经济评估研究指南和之前一篇综述中使用的检查表的质量检查表进行评估。遵守的质量标准平均值为 30 项中的 23 项，而 5 篇文章（3%）符合所有 30 项标准。在描述视角（40%）、从视角（48%）或时间范围（48%）考虑成本的完整性、以及报告资源数量（47%）方面，合规性较低。此外，如果不应用折扣，则很少给出解释（14%）。将研究质量与 Smith 和 Blackmore 的报告进行比较后，以下标准有了相当大的改进：呈现视角（从 19%提高到 40%）、主要结果衡量指标的说明（从 72%提高到 81%）、从时间范围考虑成本的完整性（从 14%提高到 48%）、折现率的呈现（从 10%提高到 54%）、敏感性分析的详细信息（从 21%提高到 61%）、报告增量结果（从 17%提高到 70%）和报告综合指标（从 57%提高到 74%）。在过去十年中，妇产科经济研究的质量有了相当大的提高，但仍有进一步提高的空间。
