Briggs A, Sculpher M
Health Economics Research Group, Brunel University, UK.
Health Econ. 1995 Sep-Oct;4(5):355-71. doi: 10.1002/hec.4730040502.
A structured methodological review of journal articles published in 1992 was undertaken to determine whether recently published economic evaluation studies deal systematically and comprehensively with uncertainty. Ninety three journal articles were identified from a range of searches including a computerised search of the MEDLINE CD-Rom database. Articles were reviewed to determine how they had handled uncertainty in: a) data sources; b) generalisability; c) extrapolation; and d) analytic method. Articles were subsequently assessed to determine how they had represented this uncertainty in terms of the overall results of their analysis. Finally, studies were rated on the basis of their overall performance with respect to dealing systematically and comprehensively with uncertainty. Despite the numerous books and articles devoted to the appropriate methods to be employed by analysts conducting economic evaluation, 22 (24%) studies failed to consider uncertainty at all and 35 (38%) studies employed sensitivity analysis in a manner judged as inadequate. In all, 36 (39%) studies were judged to have given at least an adequate account of uncertainty with 13 (14%) of those judged to have provided a good account of uncertainty. Such disappointing results may reflect a general lack of detail in much of the methods literature concerning how sensitivity analysis should be applied and how results should be presented. Journal editors and readers of economic evaluation articles should acquaint themselves with the methods for handling uncertainty in order that they can critically evaluate the extent to which authors have allowed for uncertainties inherent in their analysis.
对1992年发表的期刊文章进行了结构化的方法学综述,以确定近期发表的经济评估研究是否系统、全面地处理了不确定性问题。通过一系列检索,包括对MEDLINE光盘数据库进行计算机检索,共识别出93篇期刊文章。对这些文章进行评审,以确定它们在以下方面如何处理不确定性:a)数据来源;b)可推广性;c)外推法;d)分析方法。随后评估文章,以确定它们在分析的总体结果方面如何体现这种不确定性。最后,根据研究在系统、全面处理不确定性方面的总体表现进行评分。尽管有大量书籍和文章专门介绍经济评估分析师应采用的适当方法,但22项(24%)研究根本未考虑不确定性,35项(38%)研究采用的敏感性分析方式被判定为不充分。总体而言,36项(39%)研究被判定至少对不确定性进行了充分阐述,其中13项(14%)被判定对不确定性进行了很好的阐述。如此令人失望的结果可能反映出,许多方法学文献在敏感性分析应如何应用以及结果应如何呈现方面普遍缺乏细节。经济评估文章的期刊编辑和读者应熟悉处理不确定性的方法,以便他们能够批判性地评估作者在分析中考虑内在不确定性的程度。