The Methodological Quality of Economic Evaluation Studies in Obstetrics and Gynecology: A Systematic Review

Abstract

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.

Keywords

obstetrics - gynecology - cost-effectiveness - economic evaluation - methodological quality

• References

• 1 Drummond MF, Sculpher MJ, Torrance GW, O'Brien BJ, Stoddart GL. Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes. New York: Oxford University Press; 2005
• 2 Drummond MF, Jefferson TO. The BMJ Economic Evaluation Working Party. Guidelines for authors and peer reviewers of economic submissions to the BMJ. BMJ 1996; 313: 275-283
• 3 Siegel JE, Weinstein MC, Russell LB, Gold MR. Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine. Recommendations for reporting cost-effectiveness analyses. JAMA 1996; 276: 1339-1341
• 4 Gold MR, Siegel JE, Weinstein MC, Russell LB. Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine, Vol. XXIII. New York: Oxford University Press; 1996
• 5 Detsky AS, Naglie IG. A clinician's guide to cost-effectiveness analysis. Ann Intern Med 1990; 113: 147-154
• 6 Udvarhelyi IS, Colditz GA, Rai A, Epstein AM. Cost-effectiveness and cost-benefit analyses in the medical literature. Are the methods being used correctly?. Ann Intern Med 1992; 116: 238-244
• 7 Smith WJ, Blackmore CC. Economic analyses in obstetrics and gynecology: a methodologic evaluation of the literature. Obstet Gynecol 1998; 91: 472-478
• 8 Severens JL. Economic evaluation in health care: the usefulness of research guidelines. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2001; 94: 5-7
• 9 Jefferson T, Demicheli V, Vale L. Quality of systematic reviews of economic evaluations in health care. JAMA 2002; 287: 2809-2812
• 10 Hoomans T, Evers SM, Ament AJ , et al. The methodological quality of economic evaluations of guideline implementation into clinical practice: a systematic review of empiric studies. Value Health 2007; 10: 305-316
• 11 Subak LL, Caughey AB, Washington AE. Cost-effectiveness analyses in obstetrics & gynecology. Evaluation of methodologic quality and trends. J Reprod Med 2002; 47: 631-639
• 12 Manuel MR, Chen LM, Caughey AB, Subak LL. Cost-effectiveness analyses in gynecologic oncology: methodological quality and trends. Gynecol Oncol 2004; 93: 1-8
• 13 Vintzileos AM, Beazoglou T. Design, execution, interpretation, and reporting of economic evaluation studies in obstetrics. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2004; 191: 1070-1076
• 14 Sculpher M, Manca A, Abbott J, Fountain J, Mason S, Garry R. Cost effectiveness analysis of laparoscopic hysterectomy compared with standard hysterectomy: results from a randomised trial. BMJ 2004; 328: 134-139
• 15 Kulasingam SL, Myers ER. Potential health and economic impact of adding a human papillomavirus vaccine to screening programs. JAMA 2003; 290: 781-789