Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31262293›Full record

SynthesisBMC oral health2019

A systematic review of the quality and scope of economic evaluations in child oral health research.

H J Rogers, H D Rodd, J H Vermaire, K Stevens, R Knapp, S El Yousfi, Z Marshman

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC oral health, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

16 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

H J RogersUnit of Oral Health, Dentistry and Society, School of Clinical Dentistry, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK. hrogers1@sheffield.ac.uk.
H D RoddUnit of Oral Health, Dentistry and Society, School of Clinical Dentistry, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.
J H VermaireDivision of Child Health, TNO Institute for Applied Sciences, Leiden, The Netherlands.
K StevensHealth Economics and Decision Science, School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.
R KnappUnit of Oral Health, Dentistry and Society, School of Clinical Dentistry, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.
S El YousfiUnit of Oral Health, Dentistry and Society, School of Clinical Dentistry, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.
Z MarshmanUnit of Oral Health, Dentistry and Society, School of Clinical Dentistry, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.

Funding

Department of Health DRF-2016-09-094
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEconomic evaluations provide policy makers with information to facilitate efficient resource allocation. To date, the quality and scope of economic evaluations in the field of child oral health has not been evaluated. Furthermore, whilst the involvement of children in research has been actively encouraged in recent years, the success of this movement in dental health economics has not yet been explored. This review aimed to determine the quality and scope of published economic evaluations applied to children's oral health and to consider the extent of children's involvement.

methodsThe following databases were searched: CINAHL, Cochrane Library, Econlit, EThOS, MEDLINE, NHS EED, OpenGrey, Scopus, Web of Science. Full economic evaluations, relating to any aspect of child oral health, published after 1997 were included and appraised against the Drummond checklist and the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards by a team of four calibrated reviewers. Data were also extracted regarding children's involvement and the outcome measures used.

resultsTwo thousand seven hundred fifteen studies were identified, of which 46 met the inclusion criteria. The majority (n = 38, 82%) were cost-effectiveness studies, with most focusing on the prevention or management of dental caries (n = 42, 91%). One study quantified outcomes in Quality Adjusted Life Years (QALYs), and one study utilised a child-reported outcome measure. The mean percentage of applicable Drummond checklist criteria met by the studies in this review was 48% (median = 50%, range = 0-100%) with key methodological weaknesses noted in relation to discounting of costs and outcomes. The mean percentage of applicable CHEERS criteria met by each study was 77% (median = 83%, range = 33-100%), with limited reporting of conflicts of interest. Children's engagement was largely overlooked.

conclusionsThere is a paucity of high-quality economic evaluations in the field of child oral health. This deficiency could be addressed through the endorsement of standardised economic evaluation guidelines by dental journals. The development of a child-centred utility measure for use in paediatric oral health would enable researchers to quantify outcomes in terms of quality adjusted life years (QALYs) whilst promoting child-centred research.

Indexed as

ChildCost-Benefit AnalysisDental CariesHumansOral HealthOutcome Assessment, Health CareQuality-Adjusted Life YearsCost-effectivenessDentistryHealth economicsOral healthPaediatric

Identifiers

PMID31262293
PMCPMC6604207

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.