Quality assessment of economic evaluations published in PharmacoEconomics. The first four years (1992 to 1995).

Our objective was to assess the quality of reporting of original economic research articles in PharmacoEconomics from inception to the end of 1995, in order to identify areas of strength and weakness, and analyse trends over time. Each regular issue of the journal was examined for original economic evaluations. Accepted articles were categorised by study type and by year of publication. A previously developed 13-item quality-scoring checklist was applied. The maximum possible score that an article could be assigned was 4.0. Quality scores were analysed over time and by study type. 54 articles were identified for analysis. Mean overall score (OS) ranged from a minimum of 1.80 to a maximum of 3.75, with a mean OS of 3.01 [standard deviation (SD) = 0.47]. The item with the highest mean score was the 'definition of study aim' (mean OS = 3.46, SD = 0.69). The item with the lowest score was 'ethical problems discussed and identified' (mean OS = 1.44, SD = 0.92). Only 4 items on the checklist had mean scores lower than 3.0. No significant time trend was apparent for OS (R2 = 0.002). Cost-benefit (mean OS = 3.25, SD = 0.85, n = 5), cost-effectiveness (mean OS = 3.11, SD = 0.97, n = 27), and cost-utility (mean OS = 3.29, SD = 0.93, n = 6) analyses had mean scores significantly higher than cost-analysis/cost-of-illness studies (mean OS = 2.51, SD = 1.14, n = 8). The mean OS for cost-minimisation studies was 2.74 (SD = 0.49, n = 8). Despite some weaknesses in particular aspects of economic evaluations published in PharmacoEconomics, we conclude that the journal has offered publications with acceptable overall quality and adequate methodology.