Delays in publication of cost utility analyses conducted alongside clinical trials: registry analysis
http://www.100md.com
《英国医生杂志》
1 Harvard Center for Risk Analysis, Department of Health Policy and Management, Harvard School of Public Health, 718 Huntington Avenue, Boston, MA 02115, USA Peter J Neumann associate professor of policy and decision sciences, 2 Division of General Medicine and Primary Care, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, 330 Brookline Avenue, Rose 130, Boston, 3 Columbia University, 617 West 168th Street, New York, NY 10032, USA, 4 Massachusetts General Hospital, 55 Fruit Street, Weight Center S50-4th floor, Boston
Correspondence to: D Greenberg, Harvard Clinical Research Institute, 930 Commonwealth Avenue, Boston, MA 02215, USA dan.greenberg@hcri.harvard.edu
Introduction
We conducted a systematic search for original English language cost utility analyses published in 1976-2001 by using Medline and other electronic databases. Two readers independently reviewed each study and came to a consensus on whether the analysis was conducted alongside a trial (data on both efficacy and resource use from the trial were used for the analysis). We identified the journal and publication date for each cost utility analysis and the corresponding trial. To assess the study's potential readership and dissemination we used paired sample t tests to compare the mean impact factors of journals in which studies were published and the extent to which publications were subsequently cited by other authors.
Of 533 cost utility analyses identified, 45 (8%) were trial based economic evaluations and covered a variety of clinical areas, particularly cardiovascular disease, cancer, and psychiatry (a full list of studies is available at www.hsph.harvard.edu/cearegistry). We could not determine the lag in publication between the trial and the economic evaluation for four studies, for which a specific trial could not be identified or trial results were published only in abstract form. In cases where the clinical trial results and economic evaluation were reported in the same article or in the same issue of the journal (n = 7), we assumed no lag.
On average, cost utility analyses were published almost two years after the publication of the corresponding trial (mean (SD) 1.8 (1.4) years; range 0-7.5 years) (figure). Journal impact factors were higher for trials than for cost utility analyses (11.0 4.9; t = -3.951 (df = 28); 95% confidence interval for the difference -9.25 to -2.93; P < 0.001). The mean number of citations per year (total number of citations divided by number of years since the study was published) was also higher for clinical trials than for the economic evaluations (27.4 3.4; t = -3.197 (df = 30); 95% confidence interval for the difference -39.24 to -8.64; P = 0.003).
Time from publication of trial's clinical results to publication of economic results (n=41), showing number in each time period. More than 75% of cost utility analyses were published one year or more after publication of the trial's clinical results
Comment
Gold M, Siegel J, Russel L, Weinstein M, eds. Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. New York: Oxford University Press, 1996.
Drummond M. Introducing economic and quality of life measurements into clinical studies. Ann Med 2001;33: 344-9.
Drummond MF, O'Brien B, Stoddart GL, Torrance GW. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. 2nd ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 1997.
Smith R. New BMJ policy on economic evaluations. BMJ 2002;325: 1124.(Dan Greenberg, visiting s)
Correspondence to: D Greenberg, Harvard Clinical Research Institute, 930 Commonwealth Avenue, Boston, MA 02215, USA dan.greenberg@hcri.harvard.edu
Introduction
We conducted a systematic search for original English language cost utility analyses published in 1976-2001 by using Medline and other electronic databases. Two readers independently reviewed each study and came to a consensus on whether the analysis was conducted alongside a trial (data on both efficacy and resource use from the trial were used for the analysis). We identified the journal and publication date for each cost utility analysis and the corresponding trial. To assess the study's potential readership and dissemination we used paired sample t tests to compare the mean impact factors of journals in which studies were published and the extent to which publications were subsequently cited by other authors.
Of 533 cost utility analyses identified, 45 (8%) were trial based economic evaluations and covered a variety of clinical areas, particularly cardiovascular disease, cancer, and psychiatry (a full list of studies is available at www.hsph.harvard.edu/cearegistry). We could not determine the lag in publication between the trial and the economic evaluation for four studies, for which a specific trial could not be identified or trial results were published only in abstract form. In cases where the clinical trial results and economic evaluation were reported in the same article or in the same issue of the journal (n = 7), we assumed no lag.
On average, cost utility analyses were published almost two years after the publication of the corresponding trial (mean (SD) 1.8 (1.4) years; range 0-7.5 years) (figure). Journal impact factors were higher for trials than for cost utility analyses (11.0 4.9; t = -3.951 (df = 28); 95% confidence interval for the difference -9.25 to -2.93; P < 0.001). The mean number of citations per year (total number of citations divided by number of years since the study was published) was also higher for clinical trials than for the economic evaluations (27.4 3.4; t = -3.197 (df = 30); 95% confidence interval for the difference -39.24 to -8.64; P = 0.003).
Time from publication of trial's clinical results to publication of economic results (n=41), showing number in each time period. More than 75% of cost utility analyses were published one year or more after publication of the trial's clinical results
Comment
Gold M, Siegel J, Russel L, Weinstein M, eds. Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. New York: Oxford University Press, 1996.
Drummond M. Introducing economic and quality of life measurements into clinical studies. Ann Med 2001;33: 344-9.
Drummond MF, O'Brien B, Stoddart GL, Torrance GW. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. 2nd ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 1997.
Smith R. New BMJ policy on economic evaluations. BMJ 2002;325: 1124.(Dan Greenberg, visiting s)