Home  |  About us  |  Editorial board  |  Ahead of print  | Current issue  |  Archives  |  Submit article  |  Instructions |  Search  |   Subscribe  |  Advertise  |  Contacts  |  Login 
  Users Online: 1555Home Print this page Email this page Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size  
ORIGINAL ARTICLE

A retrospective cross-sectional descriptive study to critically appraise the quality of reporting of health economic evaluations conducted in the Indian setting


 Department of Pharmacology, Heritage Institute of Medical Sciences, Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh, India

Correspondence Address:
Sandeep Kumar Gupta,
Heritage Institute of Medical Sciences, Varanasi - 221 311, Uttar Pradesh
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None

DOI: 10.4103/picr.PICR_137_19

Background: The reporting quality of economic research could benefit from enhanced quality assurance procedures. At present, there are small numbers of health economic researches being conducted with Indian context or setting. There is not much clarity about the reporting quality of health economic researches being conducted with Indian context or setting. Objective: The primary objective is to of this study was to appraise the quality of reporting of health economic evaluations conducted in the Indian setting and published between January 2014 and December 2018. Materials and Methods: This was a retrospective, cross-sectional, descriptive analysis. The MEDLINE in PubMed, Google Scholar, and Science Direct were systematically searched to search for economic evaluations. The consolidated health economic evaluation reporting standards statement checklist was utilized to assess the quality of reporting of the included studies. For grading the quality of the included health economic assessments, the Quality of Health Evaluation Studies (QHES) instrument was used. Results: Thirty studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria and were included in the study. The mean QHES score was 80.26 (standard deviation = 8.06). Twenty-five (83.33%, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.66–0.92) of the article mentioned perspective of the study. Twenty-nine (96.66%, 95% CI: 0.83–0.99) of the article described the effects of uncertainty for all input parameters. Twenty (66.66%, 95% CI: 0.48–0.80) of the article reported all funding sources. Conclusions: Overall, the quality of reporting of the included health economic studies was good, which reemphasizes their usefulness in supporting the decision-making procedure about better medicine. The finding of this study will be a small step toward ensuring robust and high-quality health economics data in India.
    
 

 
 * Requires registration (Free)
 

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed51    
    PDF Downloaded2    

Recommend this journal