• We are sorry, but NCBI web applications do not support your browser and may not function properly. More information
Scoring - yes, no, not clear and not appropriateStudy IDReed et al. (2004)
Checklist completed byEP
Study designWas a research question stated?Yes
Was the economic importance of the research question stated?Yes
Was the viewpoint/s of the analysis clearly stated and justified?Yes
Was the rational for choosing the alternative programs or interventions to be compared stated?Not clear
Were the alternatives being compared clearly described? (that is, can you tell who? did what? to whom? where? and how often?)?Yes
Was the form of economic evaluation used, clearly stated?Yes
Is the choice of the economic evaluation justified in relation to the questions addressed?Yes
Data collectionWas the source of the effectiveness estimates used clearly stated?Yes
Were the details of the of the design and results of the effectiveness study given? (if based on a single study)Yes
Were the details of the synthesis or meta-analysis of estimates given? (If based on an overview of a number of effectiveness studies)Yes
Was the primary outcome measure/s for the economic evaluation clearly stated?Yes
Were the methods to value health states and other benefits stated?Yes
Were the details of the subjects from whom valuations were obtained given?Yes
Were any productivity changes (if included) reported separately?Not applicable
Was the relevance of any productivity changes to the study questions discussed?Not applicable
Were the quantities of resources reported separately from their unit costs?Yes
Were the methods for estimation of quantities and unit costs described?Yes
Was the currency and price data recorded?Yes
Were the details of currency of price adjustments for inflation or currency conversion given?Yes
ModellingWere the details of any model used given?Yes
Was the choice of model and the key parameters on which it was based justified?Yes
Analysis and interpretation of resultsWas the time horizon of costs and benefits stated?Yes
Was the discount rate stated?No
Was the choice of discount rate justified?No
Was an explanations given if costs or benefits were not discounted?Yes
Were the details of statistical tests and confidence rates given for stochastic data?Yes
Was the approach to sensitivity analysis given?Yes
Was the choice of variables for sensitivity analysis justified?Yes
Were the ranges over which the variables are varied stated?Yes
Were relevant alternatives compared?Yes
Was the incremental analysis reported?Yes
Were the major outcomes presented in a disaggregated as well as aggregated form?Yes
Was the answer to the study question given?Yes
Did the conclusions follow from the data reported?Yes
Were the conclusions accompanied by the appropriate caveats?Yes
This and the following have been retained from Appendix GDid the study allude to, or take account of, other important factors in the choice or decision under consideration (for example, distribution of costs and consequences, or relevant ethical issues)?No
Did the study discuss issues of implementation, such as the feasibility of adopting the ‘preferred’ programme given existing financial or other constraints, and whether any freed resources could be redeployed to other worthwhile programmes?No
OVERALL ASSESSMENT OF THE STUDYHow well was the study conducted? Code ++, + or −++
Are the results of this study directly applicable to the patient group targeted by this guideline?Yes

From: Chapter 6 – Locally Advanced Prostate Cancer

Cover of Prostate Cancer
Prostate Cancer: Diagnosis and Treatment.
NICE Clinical Guidelines, No. 58.
National Collaborating Centre for Cancer (UK).
Copyright © 2008, National Collaborating Centre for Cancer.

No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored or transmitted in any form or by any means, without the prior written permission of the publisher or, in the case of reprographic reproduction, in accordance with the terms of licenses issued by the Copyright Licensing Agency in the UK. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside the terms stated here should be sent to the publisher at the UK address printed on this page.

The use of registered names, trademarks etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant laws and regulations and therefore for general use.

PubMed Health. A service of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.