| Item no. |
Item |
Quality of included studies (Yes/No/NC/NA) |
|
|
|
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
| 1 |
Was a well-defined question posed in answerable form? |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
| 2 |
Was a comprehensive description of the competing alternatives given (i.e. can you tell who did what to whom, where, and how often)? |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
| 3 |
Was the effectiveness of the programme or services established |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
| 4 |
Were all the important and relevant costs and consequences for each alternative identified |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
No |
| 5 |
Were costs and consequences measured accurately inappropriate physical units (e.g. hours of nursing time, number of physician visits, lost work-days, gained life years)? |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
No |
Yes |
No |
| 6 |
Were the cost and consequences valued credibly |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
NA |
Yes |
No |
| 7 |
Were costs and consequences adjusted for differential timing? |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
No |
No |
Yes |
| 8 |
Was an incremental analysis of costs and consequences of alternatives performed |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
No |
Yes |
Yes |
| 9 |
Was allowance made for uncertainty in the estimates of costs and consequences |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
| 10 |
Did the presentation and discussion of study results include all issues of concern to users? |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
NA |
|
|
Total |
10 |
10 |
10 |
6 |
9 |
6 |
