Development and validation of a grading system for the quality of cost-effectiveness studies
Development and validation of a grading system for the quality of cost-effectiveness studies
复制标题
DOI：
10.1097/00005650-200301000-00007
复制
发表时间：
2003-01-01
期刊：
影响因子：
3
通讯作者：
Ofman, JJ
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Chiou, CF;Hay, JW;Ofman, JJ
目的.为评价成本效果研究的质量提供一种实用的定量工具。一个由卫生经济学家组成的委员会从项目库中为该工具选择了一套标准。通过对120名国际卫生经济学家的联合分析调查收集的数据，使用随机效应回归模型估计每个标准的权重。为了验证分级系统，向60名具有卫生经济学专业知识的个人发送了一份调查。参与者首先在视觉模拟量表上对三项CE研究的质量进行评分，然后使用评分系统对每项研究进行评价。采用斯皮尔曼rho和Wilcoxon检验检测收敛效度，协方差分析（ANCOVA）检测判别效度。还审查了专家的全球评级与评级制度之间的一致性。选择了16个标准。他们的系数估计值从1.2到8.9不等，在100分的量表上总和为93.5。唯一不重要的标准是“使用亚组分析”。“斯皮尔曼rho（correlation coefficient = 0.78，P
PURPOSE. To provide a practical quantitative tool for appraising the quality of cost-effectiveness (CE) studies.METHODS. A committee comprised of health economists selected a set of criteria for the instrument from an item pool. Data collected with a conjoint analysis survey on 120 international health economists were used to estimate weights for each criterion with a random effects regression model. To validate the grading system, a survey was sent to 60 individuals with health economics expertise. Participants first rated the quality of three CE studies on a visual analogue scale, and then evaluated each study using the grading system. Spearman rho and Wilcoxon tests were used to detect convergent validity and analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) for discriminant validity. Agreement between the global rating by experts and the grading system was also examined.RESULTS. Sixteen criteria were selected. Their coefficient estimates ranged from 1.2 to 8.9, with a sum of 93.5 on a 100-point scale. The only insignificant criterion was "use of subgroup analyses." Both convergent validity and discriminant validity of the grading system were shown by the results of the Spearman rho (correlation coefficient = 0.78, P