. 2005 Dec 21;15(8):1165–1173. doi: 10.1007/s00586-005-0031-6

Table 1.

Criteria for the quality assessment of economic evaluations in lumbar spinal fusion, 2005

Aim and perspective^a
1a	Was a well-defined question posed in an answerable form?
1b	Was a viewpoint for the analysis stated and was the study placed in any particular decision-making context?
Patient selection^b
2a	Were the eligibility criteria specified?
2b	Was a method of randomization used to allocate the patients?
Intervention^b
3a	Were index and control interventions explicitly described?
3b	Was the compliance acceptable in all groups?
Outcome measurement—costs^a
4a	Were all the important and relevant costs and consequences identified?
4b	Were costs and consequences measured accurately in appropriate physical units?
4c	Were costs and consequences valued credibly?
Outcome measurement—effect^b
5a	Was the outcome assessor blinded to the intervention?
5b	Were the outcome measures relevant?
5c	Was the withdrawal/dropout rate described and acceptable?
Economic methodology^a
6a	Were costs and consequences adjusted for differential timing?
6b	Was an incremental analysis of costs and consequences of alternatives performed?
6c	Was allowance made for uncertainty in the estimates of costs and consequences?
6d	Did the presentation and discussion of the study results include all issues of concern to users?
Statistics^b,c
7a	Was the sample size for each group described and discussed in relation to power considerations (if not calculations)?
7b	Did the analysis include the intention-to-treat analysis?
7c	Were the synthesis of costs and benefits reported and if so, were measures of variability presented accordingly for the primary outcome measures?

^aAdopted from Drummond [8]

^bAdopted from van Tulder et al. [42, 43]

^c7a and 7c are own modifications