Trakas K, Addis A, Kruk D, Buczek Y, Iskedjian M, Einarson T R
Department of Pharmacology, University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Ann Pharmacother. 1997 Apr;31(4):423-8. doi: 10.1177/106002809703100406.
To assess and compare the quality of pharmacoeconomic abstracts of cost-minimization analyses, cost-effectiveness analyses, cost-utility analyses, and cost-benefit analyses of original research articles in selected medical, pharmacy, and health economics journals.
MEDLINE was used to identify articles in selected medical, pharmacy, and health economics journals using the MeSH word "economic" and text words "cost" and "pharmacoeconomic"; the journal PharmacoEconomics was searched manually. All retrieved abstracts were evaluated. Original, comparative (at least one drug comparator) research articles (1990-1994) reporting both costs and clinical outcomes were included in the quality analysis. Abstract quality was assessed as a percentage by using a checklist with 29 objective criteria. Group consensus produced interrater reliability greater than 0.8.
One thousand two published abstracts labeled with the above key words were identified. Of these, 951 were excluded from quality assessment because they were not original research (18%), were not pharmacoeconomic research (47%), lacked a drug comparator (35%), or did not report a clinical outcome (0.5%). Thus, the quality of 51 (5% of the total) remaining abstracts was assessed. Overall scores were 56% in 1990 and 58% in 1994 (p = 0.094). Medical articles scored highest (61.5%; n = 25), pharmacy articles were next (54.3%; n = 5), and health economics articles were lowest (53.4%; n = 21) (p = 0.091); structured abstracts scored significantly higher (62.5%; n = 20) than unstructured (53.3%; n = 31) (p = 0.003).
Abstract quality was generally poor, with no significant change in quality over time. Medical journals scored highest, probably because they use structured abstracts. Guidelines for structured pharmacoeconomic abstracts may assist in improving quality.
评估并比较在选定的医学、药学和卫生经济学杂志上发表的原创研究文章中，成本最小化分析、成本效果分析、成本效用分析和成本效益分析的药物经济学摘要的质量。
使用MEDLINE通过医学主题词“经济”以及文本词“成本”和“药物经济学”来识别选定的医学、药学和卫生经济学杂志上的文章；手动检索《药物经济学》杂志。对所有检索到的摘要进行评估。质量分析纳入了1990 - 1994年报告成本和临床结果的原创性、比较性（至少有一个药物对照）研究文章。通过使用包含29条客观标准的清单，以百分比形式评估摘要质量。小组共识得出评分者间信度大于0.8。
共识别出1200篇标有上述关键词的已发表摘要。其中，951篇被排除在质量评估之外，原因是它们不是原创研究（18%）、不是药物经济学研究（47%）、缺乏药物对照（35%）或未报告临床结果（0.5%）。因此，对其余51篇（占总数的5%）摘要的质量进行了评估。1990年的总体得分是56%，1994年是58%（p = 0.094）。医学文章得分最高（61.5%；n = 25），药学文章次之（54.3%；n = 5），卫生经济学文章最低（53.4%；n = 21）（p = 0.091）；结构化摘要的得分（62.5%；n = 并显著高于非结构化摘要（53.3%；n = 31）（p = 0.003）。
摘要质量总体较差，且质量未随时间发生显著变化。医学杂志得分最高，可能是因为它们使用结构化摘要。结构化药物经济学摘要指南可能有助于提高质量。
