The DOI matches its Crossref record; 74 of the 76 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Examining the Value and Quality of Health Economic Analyses: Implications of Utilizing the QHES
Open accessAbstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine the increasing use of health economic studies and practical implications of evaluating their quality utilizing the Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES) instrument. METHODS: We first reviewed secondary references to examine ways in which health economic analyses are used in different health care settings, the manner in which these data are appraised and evaluated, and their relevance and value in decision making. The QHES, a new instrument designed to support fast, accurate initial assessments of study quality, was then introduced and validated. A case study was performed using the QHES to score the quality of 30 cost-effectiveness studies in gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) published since 1985. Areas where additional research could guide efforts to identify and enhance the use of higher-quality cost-effectiveness studies were suggested. RESULTS: Results from the published validation study of the QHES demonstrated the validity of this new instrument. The resulting QHES scores in the case study of GERD papers ranged from 43 to 91 with a mean of 63.6 (SD=14.7). Approximately 27% of the studies rated had scores less than 50, and 27% had scores above or equal to 75. All 30 studies made conclusions and recommendations and justified them based on their study results. Most studies used appropriate cost and health outcome measures. Very few studies stated the perspective of their analysis and reasons for its selection. The majority of the studies did not perform incremental analysis. CONCLUSION: An examination of the QHES validation study and the case study in GERD suggests that there is a rationale and potential utility to use a quality scoring system for cost-effectiveness studies. The QHES may play an important role in discriminating higher-quality cost-effectiveness information to enhance decision making. The QHES can also serve as a guideline for conducting and reporting future cost-effectiveness studies, as an aid in the editorial process, and for stratification in systematic reviews. Complex decisions regarding resource allocation rarely rely solely on economic considerations but do increasingly use health economic analyses. To the extent that such analyses are used, the QHES may help ensure that higher-quality analyses receive more analytic attention and greater weight in the decision-making process.
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.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“As per standard practice using this framework, the studies were deemed to be of good quality if they attained a score of 75/100 or higher [5].”
From Use of health economic evaluation in the implementation and improvement science fields—a systematic literature review (2019) · cites this paper as [5]
In the citing paper
“The QHES instrument was designed to more easily tell the difference between high-quality and low-quality studies [5].”
From Use of health economic evaluation in the implementation and improvement science fields—a systematic literature review (2019) · cites this paper as [5]
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
Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: Is blinding necessary?
Jadad, A. R., Moore, R. A., Carroll, D., Jenkinson, C., Reynolds, D. J. M., Gavaghan, D. J., & McQuay, H. J. (1996) · Controlled Clinical Trials · doi:10.1016/0197-2456(95)00134-4 · Cited by 17,582
Moher, D., Pham, B., Jones, A., Cook, D. J., Jadad, A. R., Moher, M., Tugwell, P., & Klassen, T. P. (1998) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(98)01085-x · Cited by 3,560
Users' Guides to the Medical Literature
Guyatt, G. H. (1993) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.270.17.2096 · Cited by 3,083
Recommendations of the Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine
Weinstein, M. C. (1996) · JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association · doi:10.1001/jama.1996.03540150055031 · Cited by 2,455 · cited 1×
“Weinstein et al., 1996.”
The Hazards of Scoring the Quality of Clinical Trials for Meta-analysis
Jüni, P. (1999) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.282.11.1054 · Cited by 1,981
Guidelines for authors and peer reviewers of economic submissions to the BMJ
Drummond, M. F., & Jefferson, T. O. (1996) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.313.7052.275 · Cited by 1,827
Moher, D., Jadad, A. R., Nichol, G., Penman, M., Tugwell, P., & Walsh, S. (1995) · Controlled Clinical Trials · doi:10.1016/0197-2456(94)00031-w · Cited by 1,308
The Role of Cost-effectiveness Analysis in Health and Medicine
Russell, L. B. (1996) · JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association · doi:10.1001/jama.1996.03540140060028 · Cited by 1,167
Are Guidelines Following Guidelines?
Shaneyfelt, T. M., Mayo‐Smith, M. F., & Rothwangl, J. (1999) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.281.20.1900 · Cited by 853
Robinson, R. (1993) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.307.6907.793 · Cited by 819
Research works printed but not linked: 19
- Shaneyfelt TM, Mayo-Smith MF, Rothwangl J. Are guidelines following guide- lines? The methodological quality of clinical practice guidelines in the peer- reviewed medical literature. JAMA. 1999;281:1900-05.
- Drummond MF, Richardson WS, O'Brien BJ, et al. User' s guide to the medical literature. XIII. How to use an article on economic analysis of clinical practice. A. Are the results of the study valid? Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group. JAMA. 1997; 277:1552-57.
- O'Brien B, Heyland D, Richardson WS, et al. User' s guide to the medical litera- ture. XIII. How to use an article on economic analysis of clinical practice. B. What are the results and will they help me in caring for my patients? JAMA.1997; 277:1802-06.
- Sonnenberg A, Inadomi JM, Becker LA. Economic analysis of step-wise treat- ment of gastroesophageal reflux disease. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 1999;13:1003-13.
- Stalhammar NO. Assessing the cost-effectiveness of medical treatments in Examining the Value and Quality of Health Economic Analyses: Implications of Utilizing the QHES acid-related diseases. The Markov chain approach applied to a comparison between intermittent and maintenance treatment of reflux esophagitis. Scand J Gastroenterol Suppl. 1993;199:8-13.
- Bate C, Richardson P. Cost-effectiveness of omeprazole in the management of gastroesophageal reflux disease in clinical practice. Br J Med Econ. 1994;7:81-97.
- Bate C, Hungin A, Wilcock C. Cost-effective management of gastroesophageal reflux disease in general practice. Br J Med Econ. 1993;6:81-90.
- Bate C, Green J, Taylor M. Cost-effective prophylaxis against the recurrence of benign oesophageal stricture. Br J Med Econ. 1995;8:97-107.
- Bate C, Richardson P. A one-year model for the cost-effectiveness of treating reflux oesophagitis. Br J Med Econ. 1992;2:5-11.
- Bate C. Cost-effectiveness of omeprazole in the treatment of reflux oesophagi- tis. Br J Med Econ. 1991;1:53-61.
- Bate C, Richardson P. Symptomatic assessment and cost effectiveness of treat- ments for reflux oesophagitis: comparisons of omeprazole and histamine H2- receptor antagonists. Br J Med Econ. 1992;2:37-48.
- Green J, Bate C, Copeman M. A comparison of the cost-effectiveness of omeprazole and ranitidine in reflux oesophagitis. Br J Med Econ. 1995;8:37-48.
- Jonsson B, Stalhammar NO. The cost-effectiveness of omeprazole and raniti- dine in intermittent and maintenance treatment of reflux oesophagitis-the case of Sweden. Br J Med Econ. 1993;6:111-26.
- Phillips C, Moore A. Trial and error-an expensive luxury: economic analysis of effectiveness of proton pump inhibitors and histamine antagonists in treating reflux disease. Br J Med Econ. 1997;11:55-63.
- Bate C, Richardson P. Cost-effectiveness of 20 mg and 40 mg of omeprazole in oesophageal reflux disease. Br J Med Econ. 1993;6:59-66.
- Torrance GW, Blaker D, Detsky A, et al. Canadian guidelines for economic evaluation of pharmaceuticals. Canadian Collaborative Workshop for Pharmacoeconomics. Pharmacoeconomics. 1996;9:535-59.
- Economic analysis of health care technology. A report on principles. Task Force on Principles for Economic Analysis of Health Care Technology. Ann Intern Med. 1995;123:61-70.
- Drummond M, O'Brien B, Stoddart G, Torrance GW. Critical Assessment of Economic Evaluation. Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes. Oxford, England: Oxford Medical Publications; 1997:27-51.
- Drummond MF, Jefferson TO. Guidelines for authors and peer reviewers of economic submissions to the BMJ. BMJ. 1996;313:275-83.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
ACC/AHA Statement on Cost/Value Methodology in Clinical Practice Guidelines and Performance Measures
Anderson, J. L., Heidenreich, P. A., Barnett, P. G., Creager, M. A., Fonarow, G. C., Gibbons, R. J., Halperin, J. L., Hlatky, M. A., Jacobs, A. K., Mark, D. B., et al. (2014) · Circulation · doi:10.1161/cir.0000000000000042 · Cited by 521
ACC/AHA Statement on Cost/Value Methodology in Clinical Practice Guidelines and Performance Measures
Anderson, J. L., Heidenreich, P. A., Barnett, P. G., Creager, M. A., Fonarow, G. C., Gibbons, R. J., Halperin, J. L., Hlatky, M. A., Jacobs, A. K., Mark, D. B., et al. (2014) · Journal of the American College of Cardiology · doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2014.03.016 · Cited by 447
Quality of primary care by advanced practice nurses: a systematic review
Swan, M., Ferguson, S., Chang, A., Larson, E., & Smaldone, A. M. (2015) · International Journal for Quality in Health Care · doi:10.1093/intqhc/mzv054 · Cited by 339
Hiligsmann, M., Cooper, C. C., Arden, N., Boers, M., Branco, J., Brandi, M. L., Bruyère, O., Guillemin, F., Hochberg, M. C., Hunter, D. J., et al. (2013) · Seminars in Arthritis and Rheumatism · doi:10.1016/j.semarthrit.2013.07.003 · Cited by 341
The costs and benefits of biochar production and use: A systematic review
Campion, L., Bekchanova, M., Malina, R. M., & Kuppens, T. E. (2023) · Journal of Cleaner Production · doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.137138 · Cited by 301
Metadata
- Authors
- Ofman, J. J., Sullivan, S. D., Neumann, P. J., Chiou, C.-F., Henning, J. M., Wade, S. W., & Hay, J. W.
- Venue
- Journal of Managed Care Pharmacy
- Publisher
- Academy of Managed Care Pharmacy
- Published
- 2003-01
- Volume
- 9
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 53-61
- ISSN
- 1083-4087 (ISSN-L)
- 1944-706X
- PMC
- PMC10437166
- OpenAlex
- W2130921523
- Cited by
- 366
- References
- 76
- Citations by year
- 2026: 14 · 2025: 18 · 2024: 18 · 2023: 26 · 2022: 25 · 2021: 39 · 2020: 27 · 2019: 35 · 2018: 17 · 2017: 20 · 2016: 16 · 2015: 21 · 2014: 24 · 2013: 18 · 2012: 11
- FWCI
- 9.62
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- Locations
- Journal of Managed Care Pharmacy (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Delphi Technique in Research
- Keywords
- instrument validation, gastroesophageal reflux disease, healthcare decision-making, resource allocation, reporting guidelines, systematic reviews
- MeSH terms
- Cost-Benefit Analysis, Delivery of Health Care, Humans, United States, Economics, Pharmaceutical
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
