Cargando…

Reproducible research practices, openness and transparency in health economic evaluations: study protocol for a cross-sectional comparative analysis

INTRODUCTION: There has been a growing awareness of the need for rigorously and transparent reported health research, to ensure the reproducibility of studies by future researchers. Health economic evaluations, the comparative analysis of alternative interventions in terms of their costs and consequ...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Catalá-López, Ferrán, Caulley, Lisa, Ridao, Manuel, Hutton, Brian, Husereau, Don, Drummond, Michael F, Alonso-Arroyo, Adolfo, Pardo-Fernández, Manuel, Bernal-Delgado, Enrique, Meneu, Ricard, Tabarés-Seisdedos, Rafael, Repullo, José Ramón, Moher, David
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Publishing Group 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7045222/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32060160
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2019-034463
_version_ 1783501736653094912
author Catalá-López, Ferrán
Caulley, Lisa
Ridao, Manuel
Hutton, Brian
Husereau, Don
Drummond, Michael F
Alonso-Arroyo, Adolfo
Pardo-Fernández, Manuel
Bernal-Delgado, Enrique
Meneu, Ricard
Tabarés-Seisdedos, Rafael
Repullo, José Ramón
Moher, David
author_facet Catalá-López, Ferrán
Caulley, Lisa
Ridao, Manuel
Hutton, Brian
Husereau, Don
Drummond, Michael F
Alonso-Arroyo, Adolfo
Pardo-Fernández, Manuel
Bernal-Delgado, Enrique
Meneu, Ricard
Tabarés-Seisdedos, Rafael
Repullo, José Ramón
Moher, David
author_sort Catalá-López, Ferrán
collection PubMed
description INTRODUCTION: There has been a growing awareness of the need for rigorously and transparent reported health research, to ensure the reproducibility of studies by future researchers. Health economic evaluations, the comparative analysis of alternative interventions in terms of their costs and consequences, have been promoted as an important tool to inform decision-making. The objective of this study will be to investigate the extent to which articles of economic evaluations of healthcare interventions indexed in MEDLINE incorporate research practices that promote transparency, openness and reproducibility. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is the study protocol for a cross-sectional comparative analysis. We registered the study protocol within the Open Science Framework (osf.io/gzaxr). We will evaluate a random sample of 600 cost-effectiveness analysis publications, a specific form of health economic evaluations, indexed in MEDLINE during 2012 (n=200), 2019 (n=200) and 2022 (n=200). We will include published papers written in English reporting an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio in terms of costs per life years gained, quality-adjusted life years and/or disability-adjusted life years. Screening and selection of articles will be conducted by at least two researchers. Reproducible research practices, openness and transparency in each article will be extracted using a standardised data extraction form by multiple researchers, with a 33% random sample (n=200) extracted in duplicate. Information on general, methodological and reproducibility items will be reported, stratified by year, citation of the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement and journal. Risk ratios with 95% CIs will be calculated to represent changes in reporting between 2012–2019 and 2019–2022. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Due to the nature of the proposed study, no ethical approval will be required. All data will be deposited in a cross-disciplinary public repository. It is anticipated the study findings could be relevant to a variety of audiences. Study findings will be disseminated at scientific conferences and published in peer-reviewed journals.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7045222
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher BMJ Publishing Group
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-70452222020-03-09 Reproducible research practices, openness and transparency in health economic evaluations: study protocol for a cross-sectional comparative analysis Catalá-López, Ferrán Caulley, Lisa Ridao, Manuel Hutton, Brian Husereau, Don Drummond, Michael F Alonso-Arroyo, Adolfo Pardo-Fernández, Manuel Bernal-Delgado, Enrique Meneu, Ricard Tabarés-Seisdedos, Rafael Repullo, José Ramón Moher, David BMJ Open Health Economics INTRODUCTION: There has been a growing awareness of the need for rigorously and transparent reported health research, to ensure the reproducibility of studies by future researchers. Health economic evaluations, the comparative analysis of alternative interventions in terms of their costs and consequences, have been promoted as an important tool to inform decision-making. The objective of this study will be to investigate the extent to which articles of economic evaluations of healthcare interventions indexed in MEDLINE incorporate research practices that promote transparency, openness and reproducibility. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is the study protocol for a cross-sectional comparative analysis. We registered the study protocol within the Open Science Framework (osf.io/gzaxr). We will evaluate a random sample of 600 cost-effectiveness analysis publications, a specific form of health economic evaluations, indexed in MEDLINE during 2012 (n=200), 2019 (n=200) and 2022 (n=200). We will include published papers written in English reporting an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio in terms of costs per life years gained, quality-adjusted life years and/or disability-adjusted life years. Screening and selection of articles will be conducted by at least two researchers. Reproducible research practices, openness and transparency in each article will be extracted using a standardised data extraction form by multiple researchers, with a 33% random sample (n=200) extracted in duplicate. Information on general, methodological and reproducibility items will be reported, stratified by year, citation of the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement and journal. Risk ratios with 95% CIs will be calculated to represent changes in reporting between 2012–2019 and 2019–2022. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Due to the nature of the proposed study, no ethical approval will be required. All data will be deposited in a cross-disciplinary public repository. It is anticipated the study findings could be relevant to a variety of audiences. Study findings will be disseminated at scientific conferences and published in peer-reviewed journals. BMJ Publishing Group 2020-02-13 /pmc/articles/PMC7045222/ /pubmed/32060160 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2019-034463 Text en © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.
spellingShingle Health Economics
Catalá-López, Ferrán
Caulley, Lisa
Ridao, Manuel
Hutton, Brian
Husereau, Don
Drummond, Michael F
Alonso-Arroyo, Adolfo
Pardo-Fernández, Manuel
Bernal-Delgado, Enrique
Meneu, Ricard
Tabarés-Seisdedos, Rafael
Repullo, José Ramón
Moher, David
Reproducible research practices, openness and transparency in health economic evaluations: study protocol for a cross-sectional comparative analysis
title Reproducible research practices, openness and transparency in health economic evaluations: study protocol for a cross-sectional comparative analysis
title_full Reproducible research practices, openness and transparency in health economic evaluations: study protocol for a cross-sectional comparative analysis
title_fullStr Reproducible research practices, openness and transparency in health economic evaluations: study protocol for a cross-sectional comparative analysis
title_full_unstemmed Reproducible research practices, openness and transparency in health economic evaluations: study protocol for a cross-sectional comparative analysis
title_short Reproducible research practices, openness and transparency in health economic evaluations: study protocol for a cross-sectional comparative analysis
title_sort reproducible research practices, openness and transparency in health economic evaluations: study protocol for a cross-sectional comparative analysis
topic Health Economics
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7045222/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32060160
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2019-034463
work_keys_str_mv AT catalalopezferran reproducibleresearchpracticesopennessandtransparencyinhealtheconomicevaluationsstudyprotocolforacrosssectionalcomparativeanalysis
AT caulleylisa reproducibleresearchpracticesopennessandtransparencyinhealtheconomicevaluationsstudyprotocolforacrosssectionalcomparativeanalysis
AT ridaomanuel reproducibleresearchpracticesopennessandtransparencyinhealtheconomicevaluationsstudyprotocolforacrosssectionalcomparativeanalysis
AT huttonbrian reproducibleresearchpracticesopennessandtransparencyinhealtheconomicevaluationsstudyprotocolforacrosssectionalcomparativeanalysis
AT husereaudon reproducibleresearchpracticesopennessandtransparencyinhealtheconomicevaluationsstudyprotocolforacrosssectionalcomparativeanalysis
AT drummondmichaelf reproducibleresearchpracticesopennessandtransparencyinhealtheconomicevaluationsstudyprotocolforacrosssectionalcomparativeanalysis
AT alonsoarroyoadolfo reproducibleresearchpracticesopennessandtransparencyinhealtheconomicevaluationsstudyprotocolforacrosssectionalcomparativeanalysis
AT pardofernandezmanuel reproducibleresearchpracticesopennessandtransparencyinhealtheconomicevaluationsstudyprotocolforacrosssectionalcomparativeanalysis
AT bernaldelgadoenrique reproducibleresearchpracticesopennessandtransparencyinhealtheconomicevaluationsstudyprotocolforacrosssectionalcomparativeanalysis
AT meneuricard reproducibleresearchpracticesopennessandtransparencyinhealtheconomicevaluationsstudyprotocolforacrosssectionalcomparativeanalysis
AT tabaresseisdedosrafael reproducibleresearchpracticesopennessandtransparencyinhealtheconomicevaluationsstudyprotocolforacrosssectionalcomparativeanalysis
AT repullojoseramon reproducibleresearchpracticesopennessandtransparencyinhealtheconomicevaluationsstudyprotocolforacrosssectionalcomparativeanalysis
AT moherdavid reproducibleresearchpracticesopennessandtransparencyinhealtheconomicevaluationsstudyprotocolforacrosssectionalcomparativeanalysis