Table 3. Assessment of quality of studies of oral cancer cost included in the systematic review, according to the critical guide of Larg & Moss, 2011 [14].
| Domains | Item | Longitudinal studies | Cross-sectional and case control studies | Cross-sectional studies based on information system data | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kim (2011) | Polesel (2019) | Jacobson (2012) | Pollaers (2019) | Huang (2020) | Rezapour (2018) | van Agthoven (2001) | Fisher (2018) | Nijdam (2005) | Amarasinghe (2019) | Goyal (2014) | Zavras (2002) | van der Linden (2016) | Epstein (2008) | Lafuma (2019) | Patterson (2020) | Han (2010) | Enomoto (2015) | Lairson (2017) | Kim (2020) | Vatanasapt (2012) | Klussmann (2013) | Keeping (2018) | Milani (2021) | |||
| Analytical framework | 1A | Cost—perspective | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |||||
| 1B | Cost—epidemiological approach | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ||
| 1CI | Cost—societal | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |||||||||||||||||
| 1CII | Cost—timeframe | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |||||
| 1CIII | Cost—risk factor | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | |
| 1CIV | Cost—counterfactual population | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Total number of positive and NA answers of the Analytical frame domain (%) | 4 (67) | 3 (50) | 5 (83) | 4 (67) | 3 (50) | 5 (83) | 4 (67) | 3 (50) | 4 (67) | 5 (83) | 5 (83) | 3 (50) | 4 (67) | 5 (83) | 4 (67) | 2 (33) | 5 (83) | 5 (83) | 4 (67) | 4 (67) | 3 (50) | 5 (83) | 5 (83) | 5 (83) | ||
| Positive and NA answers of the of the Analytical frame domain (average ± SD) (68.8±15.0) **p = 0.529 | 63.3 ± 13.9 | 68.9 ± 15.3 | 75.0 ± 16.7 | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| Methodology and data | 2AI | Quantification—additional cost | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ||||||||
| 2AII | Quantification—confounders controlled | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |
| 2AIII | Quantification—important effects | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |||||||||
| 2AIV | Quantification—differences across subpopulations | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |||||||||||||
| 2AV | Quantification—required level of detail | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ||
| 2BI | Resource quantification—population based (top-down) | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |||||||
| 2BII | Resource quantification—person based (bottom-up) | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |||||||||||||||||||
| 2BIII | Resource quantification—data representative | ✓ | ✓ | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2BIV | Resource quantification—other relevant issue (model-based) | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2C | Resource—healthcare | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |||||||||||||||||||
| 2D | Productivity—losses and assumptions | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |||||||||||||||||
| 2EI | Intangible costs—mortality-related losses avoided | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2EII | Intangible costs—study’s perspective losses | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Total number of positive and NA answers of the Methodology and data domain (%) | 4 (31) | 5 (38) | 3 (23) | 7 (54) | 7 (54) | 7 (54) | 6 (46) | 7 (54) | 4 (31) | 8 (62) | 6 (46) | 6 (46) | 4 (31) | 6 (46) | 6 (46) | 6 (46) | 6 (46) | 4 (31) | 4 (31) | 6 (46) | 4 (31) | 5 (38) | 6 (46) | 7 (54) | ||
| Positive and NA answers of the of the Methodology and data domain (average ± SD) (42.9±10.1) **p = 0.745 | 40.0 ± 13.8 | 44.1 ± 9.4 | 42.3 ± 9.9 | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| Analysis and reporting | 3A | Study question answered | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
| 3B | Range of estimates presented | ✓ | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 3C | No main uncertainties identified | ✓ | ✓ | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| 3DI | Sensitivity—analysis performed | ✓ | ✓ | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| 3DII | Sensitivity—key assumptions | ✓ | ✓ | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| 3DIII | Sensitivity—point estimates | ✓ | ✓ | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| 3E | Adequate documentation—cost components, data, sources, assumptions, and methods | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |
| 3F | Uncertainty—estimates discussed | ✓ | ✓ | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| 3G | Limitations | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |||
| 3H | Results—appropriate level of detail | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |
| Total number of positive and NA answers of the Analysis and reporting domain (%) | 4 (40) | 10 (100) | 4 (40) | 4 (40) | 4 (40) | 4 (40) | 4 (40) | 4 (40) | 3 (30) | 4 (40) | 3 (30) | 4 (40) | 4 (40) | 4 (40) | 4 (40) | 4 (40) | 4 (40) | 4 (40) | 4 (40) | 9 (90) | 4 (40) | 4 (40) | 4 (40) | 4 (40) | ||
| Positive and NA answers of the of the Analysis and reporting domain (average ± SD) (43.8±16.1) **p = 0.443 | 52.0 ± 26.8 | 42.0 ± 13.7 | 40.0 ± 0.0 | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| Total number of positive and NA answers (%) | 12 (41) | 18 (62) | 12 (41) | 15 (52) | 14 (48) | 16 (55) | 14 (48) | 14 (48) | 11 (38) | 17 (59) | 13 (45) | 12 (41) | 12 (41) | 15 (52) | 14 (48) | 12 (41) | 16 (55) | 13 (45) | 12 (41) | 19 (66) | 11 (38) | 14 (48) | 15 (52) | 16 (55) | ||
| Global score: 47.8% ± 10.9 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Positive and NA answers per type of study groups (average ± SD)**p = 0.796 | 49.1 ± 9.9 | 47.3 ± 5.8 | 46.0 ± 7.2 | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| ANOVA test per domain (p-value) | 0.207 | <0.001 | 0.001 | |||||||||||||||||||||||
SD: standard deviation.
**ANOVA test (p<0.05).