Transparency, openness, and reproducible research practices are underused in health economic evaluations
Objectives: 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. Study Design and Setting: We evaluated a random sample of health economic evaluation...
| Autores: | , , , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Tipo de recurso: | artículo |
| Estado: | Versión publicada |
| Fecha de publicación: | 2024 |
| País: | España |
| Institución: | INCLIVA |
| Repositorio: | r-INCLIVA. Repositorio Institucional de Producción Científica de INCLIVA |
| OAI Identifier: | oai:incliva.fundanetsuite.com:p17849 |
| Acceso en línea: | https://incliva.portalinvestigacion.com/publicaciones/17849 |
| Access Level: | acceso abierto |
| Palabra clave: | Cost-effectiveness analysis Data sharing Economic evaluation Methodology Quality Reporting Reproducibility |
| Sumario: | Objectives: 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. Study Design and Setting: We evaluated a random sample of health economic evaluations indexed in MEDLINE during 2019. We included articles written in English reporting an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio in terms of costs per life years gained, qualityadjusted life years, and/or disability-adjusted life years. Reproducible research practices, openness, and transparency in each article were extracted in duplicate. We explored whether reproducible research practices were associated with self-report use of a guideline. Results: We included 200 studies published in 147 journals. Almost half were published as open access articles (n = 93; 47%). Most studies (n = 150; 75%) were model-based economic evaluations. In 109 (55%) studies, authors self-reported use a guideline (e.g., for study conduct or reporting). Few studies (n = 31; 16%) reported working from a protocol. In 112 (56%) studies, authors reported the data needed to recreate the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for the base case analysis. This percentage was higher in studies using a guideline than studies not using a guideline (72/109 [66%] with guideline vs. 40/91 [44%] without guideline; risk ratio 1.50, 95% confidence interval 1.15e1.97). Only 10 (5%) studies mentioned access to raw data and analytic code for reanalyses. Conclusion: Transparency, openness, and reproducible research practices are frequently underused in health economic evaluations. This study provides baseline data to compare future progress in the field. (c) 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/). |
|---|