The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Analysis and interpretation of cost data in randomised controlled trials: review of published studies
Open accessAbstract
OBJECTIVE: To review critically the statistical methods used for health economic evaluations in randomised controlled trials where an estimate of cost is available for each patient in the study. DESIGN: Survey of published randomised trials including an economic evaluation with cost values suitable for statistical analysis; 45 such trials published in 1995 were identified from Medline. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The use of statistical methods for cost data was assessed in terms of the descriptive statistics reported, use of statistical inference, and whether the reported conclusions were justified. RESULTS: Although all 45 trials reviewed apparently had cost data for each patient, only 9 (20%) reported adequate measures of variability for these data and only 25 (56%) gave results of statistical tests or a measure of precision for the comparison of costs between the randomised groups. Only 16 (36%) of the articles gave conclusions which were justified on the basis of results presented in the paper. No paper reported sample size calculations for costs. CONCLUSIONS: The analysis and interpretation of cost data from published trials reveal a lack of statistical awareness. Strong and potentially misleading conclusions about the relative costs of alternative therapies have often been reported in the absence of supporting statistical evidence. Improvements in the analysis and reporting of health economic assessments are urgently required. Health economic guidelines need to be revised to incorporate more detailed statistical advice.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Practical Statistics for Medical Research
Altman, D. G. (1990) · doi:10.1201/9780429258589 · Cited by 10,668
Rowley, M. J., Hensley, M. J., Brinsmead, M. W., & Wlodarczyk, J. H. (1995) · Medical Journal of Australia · doi:10.5694/j.1326-5377.1995.tb124592.x · Cited by 183
Cited by
Early versus late parenteral nutrition in critically ill adults
Casaer, M. P., Mesotten, D., Hermans, G., Wouters, P. J., Schetz, M., Meyfroidt, G., Van Cromphaut, S., Ingels, C., Meersseman, P., Muller, J., et al. (2011) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa1102662 · Cited by 1,696
Ramsey, S. D., Willke, R. J., Glick, H., Reed, S. D., Augustovski, F., Jonsson, B., Briggs, A., & Sullivan, S. D. (2015) · Value in Health · doi:10.1016/j.jval.2015.02.001 · Cited by 811
How should cost data in pragmatic randomised trials be analysed?
Thompson, S. G. (2000) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.320.7243.1197 · Cited by 772
Self-citationVenning, P. (2000) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.320.7241.1048 · Cited by 494
The cost-effectiveness of psychotherapy and paroxetine for severe irritable bowel syndrome
Creed, F., Fernandes, L., Guthrie, E., Palmer, S., Ratcliffe, J., Read, N., Rigby, C., Thompson, D., & Tomenson, B. (2003) · Gastroenterology · doi:10.1053/gast.2003.50055 · Cited by 443
Metadata
- Authors
- Barber, J. A., & Thompson, S. G.
- Venue
- BMJ
- Publisher
- BMJ
- Published
- 1998-10-31
- Volume
- 317
- Issue
- 7167
- Pages
- 1195-1200
- ISSN
- 0007-1447 (ISSN-L)
- 0959-8138
- 1468-5833
- OpenAlex
- W2140354297
- Cited by
- 254
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 44.78
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Analysis and interpretation of cost data in randomised controlled trials: review of published studies. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/bmj.317.7167.1195
- The paper
- Barber, J. A., & Thompson, S. G. (1998). Analysis and interpretation of cost data in randomised controlled trials: review of published studies. BMJ. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.317.7167.1195
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.