Growth and Quality of the Cost–Utility Literature, 1976–2001

Purpose:  Cost-utility analyses (CUAs) have become increasingly popular, although questions persist about their comparability and credibility. Our objectives were to: 1) describe the growth and characteristics of CUAs published in the peer-reviewed literature through 2001; 2) investigate whether CUA quality has improved over time; 3) examine whether quality varies by the experience of journals in publishing CUAs, or the source of external funding for study investigators; and 4) examine changes in practices in US-based studies following recommendations of the US Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine (USPCEHM). This study updates and expands our previous work, which examined CUAs through 1997. Methods:  We conducted a systematic search of the English-language medical literature for original CUAs published from 1976 through 2001, using Medline and other databases. Each study was audited independently by two trained readers, who recorded the methodological and reporting practices used. Results:  Our review identified 533 original CUAs. Comparing articles published in 1998 to 2001 (n = 305) with those published in 1976 to 1997 (n = 228), studies improved in almost all categories, including: clearly presenting the study perspective (73% vs. 52%, P  < 0.001); discounting both costs and quality-adjusted life-years (82% vs. 73%, P  = 0.0115); and reporting incremental cost-utility ratios (69% vs. 46%, P  < 0.001). The proportion of studies disclosing funding sources did not change (65% vs. 65%, P  = 0.939). Adherence to recommended practices was greater in more experienced journals, and roughly equal in industry versus non-industry-funded analyses. The data suggest an impact in methodological practices used in US-based CUAs in accordance with recommendations of the USPCEHM. Conclusions:  Adherence to methodological and reporting practices in published CUAs is improving, although many studies still omit basic elements. Medical journals, particularly those with little experience publishing cost-effectiveness analyses, should adopt and enforce standard protocols for conducting and reporting CUAs.Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/73064/1/j.1524-4733.2005.04010.x.pd

Consolidated health economic evaluation reporting standards (CHEERS) statement

&lt;p&gt;Economic evaluations of health interventions pose a particular challenge for reporting. There is also a need to consolidate and update existing guidelines and promote their use in a user friendly manner. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement is an attempt to consolidate and update previous health economic evaluation guidelines efforts into one current, useful reporting guidance. The primary audiences for the CHEERS statement are researchers reporting economic evaluations and the editors and peer reviewers assessing them for publication.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;The need for new reporting guidance was identified by a survey of medical editors. A list of possible items based on a systematic review was created. A two round, modified Delphi panel consisting of representatives from academia, clinical practice, industry, government, and the editorial community was conducted. Out of 44 candidate items, 24 items and accompanying recommendations were developed. The recommendations are contained in a user friendly, 24 item checklist. A copy of the statement, accompanying checklist, and this report can be found on the ISPOR Health Economic Evaluations Publication Guidelines Task Force website (www.ispor.org/TaskForces/EconomicPubGuidelines.asp).&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;We hope CHEERS will lead to better reporting, and ultimately, better health decisions. To facilitate dissemination and uptake, the CHEERS statement is being co-published across 10 health economics and medical journals. We encourage other journals and groups, to endorse CHEERS. The author team plans to review the checklist for an update in five years.&lt;/p&gt