From the Department of Medicine, Faculty of Health Sciences, Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioural Neuroscience, Centre for Health Economics and Policy Analysis, and Department of Surgery, Division of Plastic Surgery, McMaster University; and the Program for Health Economics and Outcome Measures.
Plast Reconstr Surg. 2022 Mar 1;149(3):453e-464e. doi: 10.1097/PRS.0000000000008845.
Economic evaluations can inform decision-making; however, previous publications have identified poor quality of economic evaluations in surgical specialties.
Study periods were from January 1, 2006, to April 20, 2020 (methodologic quality) and January 1, 2014, to April 20, 2020 (reporting quality). Primary outcomes were methodologic quality [Guidelines for Authors and Peer Reviewers of Economic Submissions to The BMJ (Drummond's checklist), 33 points; Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES), 100 points; Consensus on Health Economic Criteria (CHEC), 19 points] and reporting quality (Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Standards (CHEERS) statement, 24 points).
Forty-seven hand economic evaluations were included. Partial economic analyses (i.e., cost analysis) were the most common (n = 34; 72 percent). Average scores of full economic evaluations (i.e., cost-utility analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis) were: Drummond's checklist, 27.08 of 33 (82.05 percent); QHES, 79.76 of 100 (79.76 percent); CHEC, 15.54 of 19 (81.78 percent); and CHEERS, 20.25 of 24 (84.38 percent). Cost utility analyses had the highest methodologic and reporting quality scores: Drummond's checklist, 28.89 of 35 (82.54 percent); QHES, 86.56 of 100 (86.56 percent); CHEC, 16.78 of 19 (88.30 percent); and CHEERS, 20.8 of 24 (86.67 percent). The association (multiple R) between CHEC and CHEERS was strongest: CHEC, 0.953; Drummond's checklist, 0.907; and QHES, 0.909.
Partial economic evaluations in hand surgery are prevalent but not very useful. The Consensus on Health Economic Criteria and Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Standards should be used in tandem when undertaking and evaluating economic evaluation in hand surgery.
经济评估可以为决策提供信息；然而，先前的出版物已经确定了外科专业中经济评估质量较差的问题。
研究期间为 2006 年 1 月 1 日至 2020 年 4 月 20 日（方法学质量）和 2014 年 1 月 1 日至 2020 年 4 月 20 日（报告质量）。主要结局指标是方法学质量[向《英国医学杂志》投稿的经济内容作者和同行评审者指南（Drummond 清单），33 分；健康经济研究质量（QHES），100 分；健康经济标准共识（CHEC），19 分]和报告质量（健康经济评估标准综合报告声明，24 分）。
纳入了 47 项手部经济评估。部分经济分析（即成本分析）最为常见（n=34；72%）。全经济评估（即成本效用分析和成本效益分析）的平均得分如下：Drummond 清单，33 分中的 27.08 分（82.05%）；QHES，100 分中的 79.76 分（79.76%）；CHEC，19 分中的 15.54 分（81.78%）；以及 CHEERS，24 分中的 20.25 分（84.38%）。成本效用分析具有最高的方法学和报告质量评分：Drummond 清单，35 分中的 28.89 分（82.54%）；QHES，100 分中的 86.56 分（86.56%）；CHEC，19 分中的 16.78 分（88.30%）；以及 CHEERS，24 分中的 20.8 分（86.67%）。CHEC 和 CHEERS 之间的关联（多元 R）最强：CHEC，0.953；Drummond 清单，0.907；QHES，0.909。
手部外科中部分经济评估较为普遍，但并非非常有用。在进行手部外科的经济评估时，应同时使用健康经济标准共识和健康经济评估标准综合报告声明。
