Quality of Abstracts of Papers Reporting Original Cost-Effectiveness Analyses

Allison B. Rosen, Dan Greenberg, Patricia W. Stone, Natalia V. Olchanski and Peter J. Neumann
Additional contact information
Allison B. Rosen: Division of General Medicine, University of Michigan Health Systems, Department of Health Management and Policy, University of Michigan School of Public Health, and Health Services Research and Development Unit, Ann Arbor Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Ann Arbor, Michigan, Harvard Center for Risk Analysis, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts, abrosen@umich.edu
Dan Greenberg: Harvard Center for Risk Analysis, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts
Patricia W. Stone: Columbia University, School of Nursing, New York, New York
Natalia V. Olchanski: Harvard Center for Risk Analysis, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts
Peter J. Neumann: Harvard Center for Risk Analysis, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts

Medical Decision Making, 2005, vol. 25, issue 4, 424-428

Abstract: Background . Although many peer-reviewed journals have adopted standards for reporting cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs), guidelines do not exist for the accompanying abstracts. Abstracts are the most easily accessed portion of journal articles, yet little is known about their quality. The authors examined the extent to which abstracts of published CEAs include key data elements (intervention, comparator, target population, study perspective) and assessed the effect of journal characteristics on reporting quality. Methods .Systematic review of the English-language medical literature from 1998 through 2001. The authors searched MEDLINE for original CEAs reported in costs per quality-adjusted life years(i.e., cost-utility analyses). Two independent readers abstracted data elements and met to resolve discrepancies. Results . Among the 303 abstracts reviewed, a clear description of the intervention was present in 94%, comparator in 71%, target population in 85%, and study perspective in 28%. All 4 data elements were reported in 20% of abstracts, 3 elements in 49%, 2 in 22%, and 0 or 1 in 9%. In journals with CEA-specific abstract reporting requirements, structured abstract requirements, or impact factors ≥ 10, significantly more data were included in abstracts than in journals without these features (P

Keywords: abstracting and indexing; cost-effectiveness; cost-utility; economic analyses; publishing; QALYs (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2005
References: View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (1)

Downloads: (external link)
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X05278932 (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:sae:medema:v:25:y:2005:i:4:p:424-428

DOI: 10.1177/0272989X05278932

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in Medical Decision Making
Bibliographic data for series maintained by SAGE Publications ().