Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
AIM: To evaluate the types and quality of reporting of economic evaluations carried out in the clinical management of periodontal disease over 32 years from 1987 to 2019. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A systematic search of articles from 1987 to 2019 was conducted using PubMed, Web of Science, The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Health Technology Assessment Database and Embase. The quality of the economic evaluations was assessed based on the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standard checklist. Due to considerable between-study heterogeneity, a meta-analysis was not performed. RESULTS: Twenty one publications were included. 11 studies used cost-effectiveness analysis, five used cost-minimization analysis, four used cost-utility analysis and two used cost-benefit analysis. Comparators, choice of health outcomes, estimating resources and costs were fully reported in all studies. Many studies had inadequate reporting in terms of estimating resources and costs, choice of health outcomes, characterizing heterogeneity and study perspective. CONCLUSIONS: There has been an increase in health economics studies in the field of clinical periodontology over the past decade. Several studies did not report study perspective, and the health outcomes chosen were not relevant for some studies. Future studies should follow an economic evaluation checklist for high-quality reporting and consistency.
Tay et al. (2021) studied this question.