Table 4 Reporting quality of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) economic evaluations and comparable results of similar reviews in conventional medicine
From: Is complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) cost-effective? a systematic review
Items from the BMJ Checklist [30] (Indented items apply only to a subset of studies) | Review of CAM Studies N (%) | Reviews of Conventional Medicine Studies N (%) |
|---|---|---|
Study design | Â | Â |
(1) The research question is stated | 39 (74) | 43 (16)* |
(2) The economic importance of the research question is stated | 39 (51) | Â |
(3) The perspective of the analysis is stated | 39 (33) | 228 (52)†|
(4) The rationale for choosing the alternatives is stated | 39 (69) | Â |
(5) The alternatives being compared are clearly described | 39 (74) | 228 (83)†|
(6) The form of economic evaluation used is stated | 39 (49) | Â |
(7) The choice of form of economic evaluation is justified | 39 (3) | 43 (7)* |
Data collection | Â | Â |
(8) The source(s) of effectiveness estimates are stated | 38 (100) | Â |
   (9) Details of the effectiveness study are given | 36 (94) |  |
or (10) Details of the review or meta-analysis are given | 2 (50) | Â |
(11) Primary outcome measures are clearly stated | 39 (95) | Â |
   (12) Methods to value health states are stated | 4 (100) | 228 (75)†43 (79)‡ |
   (13) Details of the subjects from which values were obtained are given | 4 (25) | 228 (76)†43 (46)‡ |
   (14) Productivity changes are reported separately | 8 (88) |  |
   (15) The relevance of productivity changes is discussed | 8 (25) |  |
(16) Quantities of resources are reported separately from unit costs | 39 (67) | 43 (19)‡ |
(17) Methods for the estimation of quantities and unit costs are described | 39 (67) | Â |
(18) Currency and year are recorded | 39 (41) | 228 (68)†|
(19) Details of adjustments for inflation or currency conversion are given | 39 (21) | 43 (21)* |
   (20) Details of any model used are given | 3 (100) |  |
   (21) The choice of the model and its key parameters are justified | 3 (100) |  |
Analysis and interpretation of results | Â | Â |
(22) Time horizon of costs and benefits is stated | 39 (100) | Â |
   (23) The discount rate is stated | 4 (50) | 228 (65)†|
   (24) The choice of discount rate is justified | 4 (25) | 43 (16)* 34 (21)‡ |
   (25) An explanation is given if costs and benefits not discounted | 4 (50) | 8 (12)‡ |
   (26) Details of statistical tests and confidence intervals are given for stochastic data | 38 (87) |  |
   (27) The approach to sensitivity analysis is given | 5 (100) | 43 (2)* |
(28) The choice of variables for sensitivity analysis is justified | 5 (40) | 39 (79)‡ |
   (29) The ranges over which variables are varied are stated | 5 (100) | 228 (57)†38 (66)‡ |
(30) Relevant alternatives are compared | 39 (36) | 228 (57)†|
   (31) Incremental analysis is reported | 13 (54) | 228 (46)†|
(32) Major outcomes are presented disaggregated and aggregated | 39 (85) | Â |
(33) The answer to the study question is given | 39 (69) | Â |
(34) Conclusions follow from the data reported | 39 (100) | Â |
(35) Conclusions are accompanied by the appropriate caveats | 39 (67) | 228 (84)†|