Table 4 Proportion of studies that met the selected criteria for grading economic evaluations

1

Was the study objective presented in a clear, specific, and measurable manner?

2

Were the perspective of the analysis (societal, third-party payer, etc.) and reason for its selection stated

5

Was uncertainty handled by: (1) statistical analysis to address random events; (2) sensitivity analysis to cover a range of assumptions?

6

Was incremental analysis performed between alternatives for resources and costs?

7

Was the methodology for data abstraction (including the value of health states and other benefits) stated?

8

Did the analytic horizon allow time for all relevant and important outcomes? Were benefits and cost that went beyond 1 year discounted and a justification given for the discount rate?

9

Was the measurement of costs appropriate and the methodology for the estimation of quantities and unit costs clearly described?

10

Were the primary outcome measure(s) for the economic evaluation clearly stated and were the major short-term, long-term, and negative outcomes included?

11

Were the health outcomes measures/scales valid and reliable? If previously tested, valid and reliable measures were not available, was justification given for the measures/scale used?

12

Were the economic model (including structure), study methods and analysis, and the components of the numerator and denominator displayed in a clear transparent manner?

13

Were the choice of economic model, main assumptions and limitations of the study stated and justified?

14

Did the author(s) explicitly discuss direction and magnitude of potential biases?

15

Were the conclusion/recommendations of the study justified and based on the study results?

16

Was there a statement disclosing the source of funding for the study?