Cc. Blackmore et Wj. Smith, ECONOMIC-ANALYSES OF RADIOLOGICAL PROCEDURES - A METHODOLOGICAL EVALUATION OF THE MEDICAL LITERATURE, European journal of radiology, 27(2), 1998, pp. 123-130
Objective: Increasing pressure to curb health care costs has led to co
nsiderable interest in economic analyses, including both cost-effectiv
eness and cost-benefit analyses. Numerous economic analyses of radiolo
gical procedures have appeared in both the radiology and non-radiology
literature. The objective of this study was to evaluate the methodolo
gical quality of economic analyses of radiological procedures publishe
d in the non-radiology medical literature during the years 1990-1995.
Methods: Original investigations from the medical (non-radiological) l
iterature that include economic analyses of radiological interventions
were identified from a computerized literature search. Each economic
analysis article was evaluated by two independent reviewers for adhere
nce to ten methodological criteria. The criteria were derived from rev
iew of the medical and radiological economic analysis methodology lite
rature and consisted of the following: (1) Comparative options stated;
(2) perspective of analysis defined; (3) outcome measure identified;
(4) cost data included; (5) source of cost data stated; (6) long term
costs included; (7) discounting employed; (8) summary measure provided
; (9) incremental computation method used; and (10) sensitivity analys
is performed. The results were compared to a previous study that evalu
ated the radiological literature. Results: Of the 56 articles in the m
edical literature that included economic analyses of radiological proc
edures, only eight (14%) conformed to all ten methodological criteria.
The cost data (98%) and comparative options (89%) criteria exhibited
high compliance, while the perspective of analysis (25%) and discounti
ng (32%) criteria had relatively low compliance. Agreement between the
reviewers was excellent (kappa=0.88). Conclusions: Published economic
analyses of radiology procedures usually do not meet accepted methodo
logical standards. (C) 1998 Elsevier Science Ireland Ltd. All rights r
eserved.