IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v25y2005i4p424-428.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Quality of Abstracts of Papers Reporting Original Cost-Effectiveness Analyses

Author

Listed:
  • 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)

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

Suggested Citation

  • Allison B. Rosen & Dan Greenberg & Patricia W. Stone & Natalia V. Olchanski & Peter J. Neumann, 2005. "Quality of Abstracts of Papers Reporting Original Cost-Effectiveness Analyses," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 25(4), pages 424-428, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:25:y:2005:i:4:p:424-428
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X05278932
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X05278932
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X05278932?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Don Husereau & Michael Drummond & Stavros Petrou & Chris Carswell & David Moher & Dan Greenberg & Federico Augustovski & Andrew Briggs & Josephine Mauskopf & Elizabeth Loder, 2013. "Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 14(3), pages 367-372, June.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:25:y:2005:i:4:p:424-428. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.