Methodologic and Reporting Quality of Economic Evaluations in Hand and Wrist Surgery: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Economic evaluations can inform decision-making; however, previous publications have identified poor quality of economic evaluations in surgical specialties. METHODS: Study periods were from January 1, 2006, to April 20, 2020 (methodologic quality) and January 1, 2014, to April 20, 2020 (reporting quality). Primary outcomes were methodologic quality [Guidelines for Authors and Peer Reviewers of Economic Submissions to The BMJ (Drummond's checklist), 33 points; Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES), 100 points; Consensus on Health Economic Criteria (CHEC), 19 points] and reporting quality (Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Standards (CHEERS) statement, 24 points). RESULTS: Forty-seven hand economic evaluations were included. Partial economic analyses (i.e., cost analysis) were the most common (n = 34; 72 percent). Average scores of full economic evaluations (i.e., cost-utility analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis) were: Drummond's checklist, 27.08 of 33 (82.05 percent); QHES, 79.76 of 100 (79.76 percent); CHEC, 15.54 of 19 (81.78 percent); and CHEERS, 20.25 of 24 (84.38 percent). Cost utility analyses had the highest methodologic and reporting quality scores: Drummond's checklist, 28.89 of 35 (82.54 percent); QHES, 86.56 of 100 (86.56 percent); CHEC, 16.78 of 19 (88.30 percent); and CHEERS, 20.8 of 24 (86.67 percent). The association (multiple R) between CHEC and CHEERS was strongest: CHEC, 0.953; Drummond's checklist, 0.907; and QHES, 0.909. CONCLUSIONS: Partial economic evaluations in hand surgery are prevalent but not very useful. The Consensus on Health Economic Criteria and Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Standards should be used in tandem when undertaking and evaluating economic evaluation in hand surgery.

Systematic review of reporting quality of economic evaluations in plastic surgery based on the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement.

BACKGROUND: Economic evaluations in healthcare are designed to inform decisions by the estimation of cost and effect trade-off of two or more interventions. This review identified and appraised the quality of reporting of economic evaluations in plastic surgery based on the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement. METHODS: Electronic databases were searched: MEDLINE, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library, Ovid Health Star, and Business Source Complete from January 1, 2012 to November 30, 2019. Data extracted included: the type of economic evaluation (i.e., cost-utility analysis (CUA), cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA), cost-benefit analysis (CBA), cost-minimization analysis (CMA)), domain of plastic surgery, journal, year, and country of publication. The CHEERS checklist (with 24 items) was used to appraise the quality of reporting. RESULTS: Ninety-two economic evaluations were identified; CUA (10%), CEA (31%), CBA (4%), and CMA (50%). Breast surgery was the top domain (48%). Most were conducted in the USA (61%) and published in Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery journal (28%). One-third were published in the last two years. The average CHEERS checklist compliance score was 15 (63%). The average CHEERS checklist compliance score per type of evaluation was 19 (77%) for CUA, 17 (70%) for CEA, 13 (52%) for CBA, and 14 (57%) for CMA. The least reported CHEERS checklist items included: time horizon (15%), discount rate (18%), and assessment of heterogeneity (15%). Thirty-two percent of studies were inappropriately titled (i.e., methodologically incorrect). CONCLUSION: Quality of reporting of economic evaluations is suboptimal. The CHEERS checklist should be consulted when performing and reporting economic evaluations in plastic surgery.