Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32060160›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2020

Reproducible research practices, openness and transparency in health economic evaluations: study protocol for a cross-sectional comparative analysis.

Ferrán Catalá-López, Lisa Caulley, Manuel Ridao, Brian Hutton, Don Husereau, Michael F Drummond, Adolfo Alonso-Arroyo, Manuel Pardo-Fernández, Enrique Bernal-Delgado, Ricard Meneu and 3 more

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Guideline
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. 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

13 authors.

Ferrán Catalá-LópezDepartment of Health Planning and Economics, National School of Public Health, Institute of Health Carlos III, Madrid, Spain ferran_catala@outlook.com.ORCID 0000-0002-3833-9312
Lisa CaulleyClinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Manuel RidaoInstituto Aragonés de Ciencias de la Salud (IACS), Red de Investigación en Servicios de Salud en Enfermedades Crónicas (REDISSEC), Zaragoza, Spain.
Brian HuttonClinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-5662-8647
Don HusereauInstitute of Health Economics, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
Michael F DrummondCentre for Health Economics, University of York, York, UK.
Adolfo Alonso-ArroyoDepartment of History of Science and Documentation, University of Valencia, Valencia, Spain.
Manuel Pardo-FernándezSpanish Medicines and Healthcare Products Agency (AEMPS), Madrid, Spain.
Enrique Bernal-DelgadoInstituto Aragonés de Ciencias de la Salud (IACS), Red de Investigación en Servicios de Salud en Enfermedades Crónicas (REDISSEC), Zaragoza, Spain.
Ricard MeneuFundación Instituto de Investigación en Servicios de Salud, Valencia, Spain.
Rafael Tabarés-SeisdedosDepartment of Medicine, University of Valencia/INCLIVA Health Research Institute and CIBERSAM, Valencia, Spain.
José Ramón RepulloDepartment of Health Planning and Economics, National School of Public Health, Institute of Health Carlos III, Madrid, Spain.
David MoherClinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.ORCID 0000-0003-2434-4206

Funding

CIHR
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionThere has been a growing awareness of the need for rigorously and transparent reported health research, to ensure the reproducibility of studies by future researchers. Health economic evaluations, the comparative analysis of alternative interventions in terms of their costs and consequences, have been promoted as an important tool to inform decision-making. The objective of this study will be to investigate the extent to which articles of economic evaluations of healthcare interventions indexed in MEDLINE incorporate research practices that promote transparency, openness and reproducibility. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is the study protocol for a cross-sectional comparative analysis. We registered the study protocol within the Open Science Framework (osf.io/gzaxr). We will evaluate a random sample of 600 cost-effectiveness analysis publications, a specific form of health economic evaluations, indexed in MEDLINE during 2012 (n=200), 2019 (n=200) and 2022 (n=200). We will include published papers written in English reporting an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio in terms of costs per life years gained, quality-adjusted life years and/or disability-adjusted life years. Screening and selection of articles will be conducted by at least two researchers. Reproducible research practices, openness and transparency in each article will be extracted using a standardised data extraction form by multiple researchers, with a 33% random sample (n=200) extracted in duplicate. Information on general, methodological and reproducibility items will be reported, stratified by year, citation of the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement and journal. Risk ratios with 95% CIs will be calculated to represent changes in reporting between 2012-2019 and 2019-2022. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Due to the nature of the proposed study, no ethical approval will be required. All data will be deposited in a cross-disciplinary public repository. It is anticipated the study findings could be relevant to a variety of audiences. Study findings will be disseminated at scientific conferences and published in peer-reviewed journals.

Indexed as

Economics, MedicalCost-Benefit AnalysisCross-Sectional StudiesHumansQuality-Adjusted Life YearsReproducibility of ResultsResearch Designcost-effectiveness analysisdata sharingmethodologyqualityreportingreproducibility

Identifiers

PMID32060160
PMCPMC7045222

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.