Quality of Reporting in Economic Evaluations of Interventions to Prevent Dental Caries Needs Improvement
Published Date:Feb 12 2013
Source:Caries Res. 47(4):265-272.
Pubmed Central ID:PMC4813796
Funding:CC999999/Intramural CDC HHS/United States
The authors searched electronic databases (MEDLINE, EconLit, ISI, Cochrane Library, NHS Economic Evaluation Database (NHSEED), Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, EMBASE, LILACS and Scielo) for full economic evaluations written in English, Spanish, Portuguese, or Italian that were published between January 1975 and April 2012. Bibliographies of all retrieved articles were hand-searched and additional studies known to the authors were also included.
Key Study Factors
Among the economic evaluations included, 30 were cost-effectiveness analyses, 22 were cost-benefit analyses, 5 included both cost-effectiveness and cost-benefit analyses, 2 were cost-minimization analyses, and 4 were cost-utility analyses.
Main Outcome Measure
The major outcomes considered were frequency of study characteristics, percentage of studies meeting each individual quality criterion, and mean scores for groups of quality criteria. Quality criteria came from a 35-item checklist developed by Drummond et al.1 Each checklist item fell into one of three groups – study design (7 items), data collection (13 items), or analysis and interpretation of results (15 items).
Of the 206 publications located in the search, 63 unique evaluations were included in this review. The majority of studies were published after 2000. The most frequently occurring interventions in economic evaluations were dental sealants (n = 13) and community water fluoridation (n = 12).
The authors conclude that the quality of reporting in economic evaluations of interventions to prevent dental caries needs to be improved.
You May Also Like: