Table 4.
Quality assessment
| Author, year | Drummond’s checklist items # | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | ||
| CEA | Saha et al., 2020 | ✓ | X | ✓ | ✓ | 0 | ✓ | NA | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
| Bogosian et al., 2015 | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | NA | ✓ | ✓ | X | |
| van Dongen et al., 2016 | ✓ | ✓ | 0 | ✓ | 0 | ✓ | NA | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |
| Herman et al., 2017 | ✓ | ✓ | 0 | ✓ | ✓ | 0 | NA | ✓ | 0 | X | |
| Johannsen et al., 2017 | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | NA | ✓ | ✓ | X | |
| Kuyken et al., 2008 | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | X | ✓ | 0 | ✓ | |
| Kuyken et al., 2015 | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |
| Lengacher et al., 2015 | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | X | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | X | |
| Prioli et al., 2017 | ✓ | X | ✓ | ✓ | 0 | ✓ | NA | ✓ | 0 | ✓ | |
| Shawyer et al., 2016 | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | 0 | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |
| van Ravesteijn et al., 2013, van Ravesteijn, 2016 | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | 0 | 0 | NA | ✓ | 0 | ✓ | |
| Pahlevan et al., 2020 | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |
| Compen et al., 2020 | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | NA | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |
| Müller et al., 2019 | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | NA | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |
| Janssen et al., 2019 | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | NA | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |
| Pérez-Aranda et al., 2019 | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | NA | ✓ | ✓ | NA | |
| Herman et al., 2020 | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | 0 | NA | X | ✓ | ✓ | |
| Bogosian et al., 2021 | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | 0 | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |
| CBA | Fjorback et al., 2013 | ✓ | ✓ | NA | ✓ | 0 | ✓ | 0 | NA | ✓ | ✓ |
| Klatt et al., 2016 | ✓ | ✓ | NA | X | ✓ | ✓ | X | NA | ✓ | X | |
| Knight et al., 2015 | ✓ | X | NA | X | ✓ | ✓ | X | NA | ✓ | ✓ | |
| Rakel et al., 2013 | ✓ | ✓ | NA | X | ✓ | ✓ | NA | NA | ✓ | ✓ | |
| Singh et al., 2008 | X | X | NA | X | X | X | X | NA | X | X | |
| Singh et al., 2015 | X | X | NA | ✓ | ✓ | X | NA | NA | ✓ | X | |
| Singh et al., 2016a | X | X | NA | ✓ | ✓ | X | NA | NA | ✓ | X | |
| Singh et al., 2016b | 0 | ✓ | NA | ✓ | ✓ | X | NA | NA | ✓ | ✓ | |
| Singh et al., 2020 | ✓ | ✓ | NA | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | NA | X | ✓ | ✓ | |
| Steegers-Theunissen et al., 2020 | ✓ | ✓ | NA | ✓ | NA | ✓ | NA | X | ✓ | ✓ | |
✓ = criteria satisfied; X = criteria not satisfied; NA = not applicable; 0 = unclear
This table is computed based upon the 10-item Drummond’s checklist: 1. Was a well-defined question posed in answerable form? 2. Was a comprehensive description of the competing alternatives given (i.e., can you tell who did what to whom, where and how often)? 3. Was the effectiveness of the programme or services established? 4. Were all the important and relevant costs and consequences for each alternative identified? 5. Were costs and consequences measured accurately in appropriate physical units (e.g., hours of nursing time, number of physician visits, lost work-days, gained life years)? 6. Were the cost and consequences valued credibly? 7. Were costs and consequences adjusted for differential timing? 8. Was an incremental analysis of costs and consequences of alternatives performed? 9. Was allowance made for uncertainty in the estimates of costs and consequences? 10. Did the presentation and discussion of study results include all issues of concern to users?