Table 4.
Quality assessment of the included studies
| Items | Lemieux et al.[38] | Mandelblatt et al.[37] | Strong et al.[36] | Sabariego et al.[39] | Arving et al.[29] | Choi Yoo et al.[31] | Walker et al.[34] | Mewes et al.[33] | Lengacher et al.[32] | Chatterton et al.[30] | Duarte et al.[35] | % yes or NA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Was a well-defined question posed? | No | Yes | No | Yes | Yes | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | 73 |
| Was a description of the alternatives given? And were all relevant alternatives omitted? | Yes | Partly | Yes | Partly | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Partly | Yes | 73 |
| Was the effectiveness established? | Partly | Partly | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Unclear | Partly | Yes | 64 |
| Were all relevant and important costs and consequences identified for each alternative? | No | No | No | Yes | No | No | No | No | No | No | No | 9 |
| Were costs and consequences measured accurately in appropriate units? | Partly | No | Partly | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Partly | Yes | Yes | 55 |
| Costs and consequences valued credibly? | Yes | Yes | Partly | Yes | Yes | Partly | Yes | No | Partly | Yes | Yes | 64 |
| Were costs and consequences adjusted for differential timing? | No | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | Yes | Yes | NA | NA | NA | 91 |
| Was an incremental analysis of costs and consequences of alternatives performed? | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | 100 |
| Was allowance made for uncertainty for the estimates of costs and consequences? | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | 91 |
| Did the presentation and discussion of study results include all relevant issues? | No | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | Yes | Yes | 73 |
| Total | 5 | 6 | 7 | 7, 5 | 9 | 7, 5 | 9 | 8 | 6 | 8 | 9 |
NA: Not applicable