Skip to main content

Table 5 Assessments of the quality of the studies with the Drummond checklist and the CHEC list

From: The cost-effectiveness of family/family-based therapy for treatment of externalizing disorders, substance use disorders and delinquency: a systematic review

British Medical Journal Checklist 1a 2a 3a 4a 5a 6a 7a 8a 9a 10a 11a
 1. The research question is stated. - - -
 2. The economic importance of the research question is stated. - -
 3. The viewpoint(s) of the analysis are clearly stated and justified. - - - - - - -
 4. The rationale for choosing alternative programmes or interventions compared is stated. - - - - - - - -
 5. The alternatives being compared are clearly described - - - -
 6. The form of economic evaluation used is stated. - -
 7. The choice of form of economic evaluation is justified in relation to the questions addressed. NC -
 8. The source(s) of effectiveness estimates used are stated.
 9. Details of the design and results of effectiveness study are given (if based on a single study). NA -
 10. Details of the methods of synthesis or meta-analysis of estimates are given (if based on a synthesis of a number of effectiveness studies). NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
 11. The primary outcome measure(s) for the economic evaluation are clearly stated.
 12. Methods to value benefits are stated. NA NA NA
 13. Details of the subjects from whom valuations were obtained were given.
 14. Productivity changes (if included) are reported separately. NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA - -
 15. The relevance of productivity changes to the study question is discussed. - - - - - - - - - -
 16. Quantities of resource use are reported separately from their unit costs. - - - - - -
 17. Methods for the estimation of quantities and unit costs are described. - - - - -
 18. Currency and price data are recorded. - - - -
 19. Details of currency of price adjustments for inflation or currency conversion are given. - - - - -
 20. Details of any model used are given NA NA NA NA NA
 21. The choice of model used and the key parameters on which it is based are justified. NA - - - - NA NA - NA NA
 22. Time horizon of costs and benefits is stated.
 23. The discount rate(s) is stated. NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
 24. The choice of discount rate(s) is justified. NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
 25. An explanation is given if costs and benefits are not discounted. NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
 26. Details of statistical tests and confidence intervals are given for stochastic data. - - - - - -
 27. The approach to sensitivity analysis is given. - - - - NC
 28. The choice of variables for sensitivity analysis is justified. NA NA NA NA NA NA
 29. The ranges over which the variables are varied are justified. NC NA NA NA NA NA NA
 30. Relevant alternatives are compared. NC - NC NS
 31. Incremental analysis is reported. - - -
 32. Major outcomes are presented in a disaggregated as well as aggregated form -
 33. The answer to the study question is given. NC
 34. Conclusions follow from the data reported. - -
 35. Conclusions are accompanied by the appropriate caveats. - - - - -
Total score British medical journal checklist 68 % 61 % 63 % 68 % 54 % 52 % 86 % 70 % 83 % 81 % 77 %
CHEC list            
 1. Is the study population clearly described?
 2. Are competing alternatives clearly described? - - - -
 3. Is a well-defined research question posed in answerable form? - - -
 4. Is the economic study design appropriate to the stated objective?
 5. Is the chosen time horizon appropriate to include relevant costs and consequences? NS NS NS NS NS NS NS
 6. Is the actual perspective chosen appropriate? - - - - - - - - -
 7. Are all important and relevant costs for each alternative identified? - - NS - - - - - -
 8. Are all costs measured appropriately in physical units? - - - - -
 9. Are costs valued appropriately? - NS
 10. Are all important and relevant outcomes for each alternative identified? - - -
 11. Are all outcomes measured appropriately?
 12. Are outcomes valued appropriately? - -
 13. Is an incremental analysis of costs and outcomes of alternatives performed? - - -
 14. Are all future costs and outcomes discounted appropriately? NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
 15. Are all important variables, whose values are uncertain, appropriately subjected to sensitivity analysis? - - - - - -
 16. Do the conclusions follow from the data reported? - -
 17. Does the study discuss the generalizability of the results to other settings and patient/client groups? - - - - - - -
 18. Does the article indicate that there is no potential conflict of interest of study researcher(s) and funder(s)? - - - - - - - - - -
 19. Are ethical and distributional issues discussed appropriately?
Total score CHECb 56 % 67 % 61 % 61 % 50 % 50 % 79 % 50 % 79 % 74 % 74 %
  1. NS not stated, NA not applicable, NC not clear
  2. Explanation criteria checklist: British medical journal checklist: 1. A specific question is not necessary, as long as the goal of the research is clearly stated; 5. The competing alternatives may also be described in a different accessible paper from the RCT in more detail 10. The presentation of the results is clearly given and discussions of the study contain generalizability and comparison with other studies. CHEC list: 5: Chosen time horizon is appropriate when after a certain time no additional effects are attained
  3. aStudies: Schoenwald et al., 1996; 2 French et al., 2003; 3 Sheidow et al., 2004; 4 Dennis et al., 2004; 5 McCollister et al., 2009; 6 French et al., 2008; 7 Olsson, 2010; 8 Sheidow et al., 2012; 9 Cary et al., 2013; 10 Dopp et al., 2014; 11. Borduin et al., 2015
  4. bScores were calculated by dividing the positively checked items on the quality checklist by the total minus items on the checklist that were not applicable (NA) to the study