Table 1.
Summary of quality assessment in percentage rangea.
| References | Study design (14 points): research question, form of economic evaluation | Data collection (28 points): outcomes, costs, model, currency, and price | Result analysis and interpretation (26 points): time horizon, discount rate, sensitivity analysis, conclusions | Overall quality score | Final qualitative assessmentb |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Annemans et al. (36) | 100 | 68–73 | 81–88 | 74–78 | Good |
| Foster et al. (38) | 100 | 68–73 | 88–96 | 82–88 | Good |
| Roux et al. (41) | 100 | 68–73 | 88–96 | 82–88 | Good |
| Frew et al. (39) | 100 | 68–73 | 92–100 | 84–89 | Very good |
| Peels et al. (40) | 100 | 68–73 | 92–100 | 84–89 | Very good |
| Bós et al. (37) | 100 | 54–58 | 92–100 | 84–89 | Very good |
a
The score was reduced with two points when a non-appropriate item in a domain was observed as done by Zelle and Balthussen (32).
b
Final quality scoring adapted from Zelle and Balthussen as “poor quality (scoring 40–55%), good quality (scoring 55–70%), very good quality (scoring 71–85%), and excellent quality (scoring 86% or higher)” (32). The lowest bound of the score range gives the final quality level.