Table 2 Quality assessment of included studies
From: The use of micro-costing in economic analyses of surgical interventions: a systematic review
n (%) | |
|---|---|
Is the study population clearly defined? | |
Yes | 84 (98.8) |
No | 1 (1.2) |
Are the competing alternatives clearly described? | |
Yes | 63 (74.1) |
Not applicable | 22 (25.9) |
Is a well-designed research question posed in an answerable form? | |
Yes | 85 (100.0) |
Is the economic study design appropriate to the stated objective? | |
Yes | 85 (100) |
Is the actual perspective chosen appropriate? | |
Yes | 48 (56.5) |
No | 1 (1.2) |
Not stated | 36 (42.4) |
Sensitivity analysis performed | |
No sensitivity analysis performed | 61 (71.8) |
Deterministic sensitivity analysis | 18 (21.2) |
Stochastic sensitivity analysis | 2 (2.4) |
Other stated sensitivity analysis | 3 (3.5) |
Not stated/not clear | 1 (1.2) |
Do the conclusions follow from the data reported? | |
Yes | 85 (100) |
Does the study discuss the generalizability of the results to other settings and patient/client groups? | |
Yes | 76 (89.4) |
No | 9 (10.6) |
Do the authors reports any conflict of interest? | |
Yes | 7 (8.2) |
No | 57 (67.1) |
Not stated | 21 (24.7) |
Was ethical approval obtained for the study? | |
Yes | 43 (50.6) |