From: Are multidisciplinary teams in secondary care cost-effective? A systematic review of the literature
CHEC-list quality criteria | Number of studies fulfilling criterion |
---|---|
1. Is the study population clearly described? | 12 |
2. Are competing alternatives clearly described? | 14 |
3. Is a well-defined research question posed in answerable form? | 15 |
4. Is the economic study design appropriate to the stated objective? | 15 |
5. Is the chosen time horizon appropriate in order to include relevant costs and consequences? | 15 |
6. Is the actual perspective chosen appropriate? | 3 |
7. Are all important and relevant costs for each alternative identified? | 0 |
8. Are all costs measured appropriately in physical units? | 11 |
9. Are costs valued appropriately? | 4 |
10. Are all important and relevant outcomes for each alternative identified? | 15 |
11. Are all outcomes measured appropriately? | 13 |
12. Are outcomes valued appropriately? | 13 |
13. Is an incremental analysis of costs and outcomes of alternatives performed? | 3 |
14. Are all future costs and outcomes discounted appropriately? | 2 |
15. Are all important variables, whose values are uncertain, appropriately subjected to sensitivity analysis? | 3 |
16. Do the conclusions follow from the data reported? | 9 |
17. Does the study discuss the generalizability of the results to other settings and patient/client groups? | 2 |
18. Does the article indicate there is no potential conflict of interest of study researcher(s) and funder(s)? | 4 |
19. Are ethical and distributional issues discussed appropriately? | 0 |