Bradley C A, Iskedjian M, Lanctôt K L, Mittmann N, Simone C, St Pierre E, Miller E, Blatman B, Chabursky B, Einarson T R
Faculty of Pharmacy, University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Ann Pharmacother. 1995 Jul-Aug;29(7-8):681-9. doi: 10.1177/106002809502907-805.
To assess and compare the quality of economic studies in selected pharmacy, medical, and health economics journals.
DICP The Annals of Pharmacotherapy, American Journal of Hospital Pharmacy, Hospital Pharmacy, New England Journal of Medicine, Medical Care, Journal of the American Medical Association, PharmacoEconomics, International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, and Journal of Health Economics using MEDLINE, EMBASE, and International Pharmaceutical Abstracts. Search terms included "economic," "cost," and "cost analysis."
Reviewers appraised abstracts to identify original research published during 1989-1993 comparing costs and outcomes between drugs, treatments, and/or services. Initially, 123 articles met criteria; 16 were inappropriate, 17 were randomized out, and 90 (73%) were used (30/group).
Quality was assessed using a 13-item checklist. Interrater reliability was 0.91 (p < 0.05) for 9 raters, test-retest reliability was 0.94 (p < 0.001).
A 2-way ANOVA, with overall quality scores as a dependent variable with journal type and year as independent variables, was significant (F = 2.79, p = 0.002, r2 = 0.34), with no significant interaction (F = 0.71, p = 0.68) or time effect (F = 0.70, p = 0.60). Journal types differed; pharmacy journals scored significantly lower (chi 2 = 53.89, df = 2, p < 0.001). Items rated adequate (i.e., correct or acceptable) increased over time (chi 2 = 21.18, df = 4, p < 0.001). Ethical issues and study perspective most needed improvement.
Article quality for all journal types increased over time nonsignificantly; health economics journals scored highest, then medical journals, with pharmacy journals significantly lower (and having the highest standard deviation). We recommend that authors and reviewers pay closer attention to study perspective and ethical implications.
评估并比较选定的药学、医学和卫生经济学杂志中经济研究的质量。
使用MEDLINE、EMBASE和国际药学文摘数据库检索《药物治疗学年鉴》《美国医院药学杂志》《医院药学》《新英格兰医学杂志》《医疗保健》《美国医学会杂志》《药物经济学》《国际卫生保健技术评估杂志》和《卫生经济学杂志》。检索词包括“经济”“成本”和“成本分析”。
评审人员评估摘要，以确定1989年至1993年期间发表的比较药物、治疗和/或服务之间成本和结果的原创研究。最初，123篇文章符合标准；16篇不合适，17篇被随机排除，90篇（73%）被采用（每组30篇）。
使用一份包含13项内容的清单评估质量。9名评分者的评分者间信度为0.91（p<0.05），重测信度为0.94（p<0.001）。
以总体质量得分作为因变量，期刊类型和年份作为自变量进行双向方差分析，结果具有显著性（F=2.79，p=0.002，r2=0.34），无显著交互作用（F=0.71，p=0.68）或时间效应（F=0.70，p=0.60）。期刊类型存在差异；药学杂志得分显著较低（卡方=53.89，自由度=2，p<0.001）。被评为合格（即正确或可接受）的项目随时间增加（卡方=21.18，自由度=4，p<0.001）。伦理问题和研究视角最需要改进。
所有期刊类型的文章质量随时间无显著提高；卫生经济学杂志得分最高，其次是医学杂志，药学杂志得分显著较低（且标准差最高）。我们建议作者和评审人员更密切地关注研究视角和伦理影响。
