Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
PURPOSE: To evaluate the methodologic quality of cost-effectiveness and cost-benefit analyses reported in the radiology literature. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Original investigations of cost-effectiveness and cost-benefit analysis were identified from an on-line search of the radiology literature from 1989 to 1995. The articles were evaluated for adherence to minimum methodologic standards for economic analysis research. Major criteria assessed were (a) provision of comparative options, (b) statement of perspective of analysis, (c) presentation of cost data, (d) measurement of outcomes, (e) use of a summary measure of economic efficiency, and (f) performance of sensitivity analysis. Minor criteria assessed were inclusion of (a) source of cost data, (b) long-term costs, (c) discounting, and (d) incremental computation of the summary measure. RESULTS: Forty-four economic analysis articles were identified. The median numbers of major and minor principles adhered to were three and one, respectively. Five studies used all six major criteria, and three used all 10 criteria. The median number of criteria adhered to did not increase during the study period. CONCLUSION: Adherence to methodologic standards in the radiology cost-effectiveness literature is not optimal. There are several examples from radiology journals, however, where such standards are met.
Blackmore et al. (Tue,) studied this question.