Jump to: Page Content, Site Navigation, Site Search,
You are seeing this message because your web browser does not support basic web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.
Julie A Barber Department of
Medical Statistics and Evaluation, Imperial College School of Medicine,
London W12 0NN
Correspondence to: Ms
Barber j.barber{at}rpms.ac.uk
Objective To review critically the statistical
methods used for health economic evaluations in randomised controlled trials where an estimate of cost is available for each patient in the
study.
Design Survey of published randomised trials
including an economic evaluation with cost values suitable for
statistical analysis; 45 such trials published in 1995 were identified
from Medline.
Main outcome measures The use of statistical methods
for cost data was assessed in terms of the descriptive statistics reported, use of statistical inference, and whether the reported conclusions were justified.
Results Although all 45 trials reviewed apparently
had cost data for each patient, only 9 (20%) reported adequate
measures of variability for these data and only 25 (56%) gave results
of statistical tests or a measure of precision for the comparison of
costs between the randomised groups. Only 16 (36%) of the articles gave conclusions which were justified on the basis of results presented
in the paper. No paper reported sample size calculations for costs.
Conclusions The analysis and interpretation of cost
data from published trials reveal a lack of statistical awareness. Strong and potentially misleading conclusions about the relative costs
of alternative therapies have often been reported in the absence of
supporting statistical evidence. Improvements in the analysis and
reporting of health economic assessments are urgently required. Health
economic guidelines need to be revised to incorporate more detailed
statistical advice.
Key messages
© BMJ 1998