Table 5 Checklist for economic evaluations by Drummond and colleagues
CriteriaBeard et al35Campbell et al30Rizzo et al34Robertson et al32Robertson et al31Robertson et al33Sach et al38Salkeld et al36Smith and Widiatmoko37
1********
2********
3*******
4********
5*********
6*********
7***
8********
9********
10******
  • Ten criteria of the checklist for economic evaluations developed by Drummond and colleagues (each has several items): 1. Was a well-defined question posed in answerable form? 2. Was a comprehensive description of the competing alternatives given? 3. Was the effectiveness of the programmes or services established? 4. Were all the important and relevant costs and consequences for each alternative identified? 5. Were costs and consequences measured accurately in appropriate physical units? 6. Were costs and consequences valued credibly? 7. Were costs and consequences adjusted for differential timing? 8. Was an incremental analysis of costs and consequences of alternatives performed? 9. Was the allowance made for uncertainty in the estimates of costs and consequences? 10. Did the presentation and discussion of study results include all issues of concern to users?

  • * Study met all items in the criterion.

  • All items in the criterion were not met.