Table 4.
Reporting quality of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) economic evaluations and comparable results of similar reviews in conventional medicine
| Items from the BMJ Checklist [30] (Indented items apply only to a subset of studies) | Review of CAM Studies N (%) | Reviews of Conventional Medicine Studies N (%) |
| Study design | ||
| (1) The research question is stated | 39 (74) | 43 (16)* |
| (2) The economic importance of the research question is stated | 39 (51) | |
| (3) The perspective of the analysis is stated | 39 (33) | 228 (52)† |
| (4) The rationale for choosing the alternatives is stated | 39 (69) | |
| (5) The alternatives being compared are clearly described | 39 (74) | 228 (83)† |
| (6) The form of economic evaluation used is stated | 39 (49) | |
| (7) The choice of form of economic evaluation is justified | 39 (3) | 43 (7)* |
| Data collection | ||
| (8) The source(s) of effectiveness estimates are stated | 38 (100) | |
| (9) Details of the effectiveness study are given | 36 (94) | |
| or (10) Details of the review or meta-analysis are given | 2 (50) | |
| (11) Primary outcome measures are clearly stated | 39 (95) | |
| (12) Methods to value health states are stated | 4 (100) | 228 (75)† 43 (79)‡ |
| (13) Details of the subjects from which values were obtained are given | 4 (25) | 228 (76)† 43 (46)‡ |
| (14) Productivity changes are reported separately | 8 (88) | |
| (15) The relevance of productivity changes is discussed | 8 (25) | |
| (16) Quantities of resources are reported separately from unit costs | 39 (67) | 43 (19)‡ |
| (17) Methods for the estimation of quantities and unit costs are described | 39 (67) | |
| (18) Currency and year are recorded | 39 (41) | 228 (68)† |
| (19) Details of adjustments for inflation or currency conversion are given | 39 (21) | 43 (21)* |
| (20) Details of any model used are given | 3 (100) | |
| (21) The choice of the model and its key parameters are justified | 3 (100) | |
| Analysis and interpretation of results | ||
| (22) Time horizon of costs and benefits is stated | 39 (100) | |
| (23) The discount rate is stated | 4 (50) | 228 (65)† |
| (24) The choice of discount rate is justified | 4 (25) | 43 (16)* 34 (21)‡ |
| (25) An explanation is given if costs and benefits not discounted | 4 (50) | 8 (12)‡ |
| (26) Details of statistical tests and confidence intervals are given for stochastic data | 38 (87) | |
| (27) The approach to sensitivity analysis is given | 5 (100) | 43 (2)* |
| (28) The choice of variables for sensitivity analysis is justified | 5 (40) | 39 (79)‡ |
| (29) The ranges over which variables are varied are stated | 5 (100) | 228 (57)† 38 (66)‡ |
| (30) Relevant alternatives are compared | 39 (36) | 228 (57)† |
| (31) Incremental analysis is reported | 13 (54) | 228 (46)† |
| (32) Major outcomes are presented disaggregated and aggregated | 39 (85) | |
| (33) The answer to the study question is given | 39 (69) | |
| (34) Conclusions follow from the data reported | 39 (100) | |
| (35) Conclusions are accompanied by the appropriate caveats | 39 (67) | 228 (84)† |
* Comparable estimates available from Jefferson et al, 1998 [83].
† Comparable estimates available from Neumann, 2004 [6], a systematic review of cost-utility analyses.
‡ Comparable estimates available from Gerard et al, 2000 [84], a systematic review of cost-utility analyses.