BMJ 2002;325:598 ( 14 September )

Letters

Systematic review of cost effectiveness in telemedicine

    Quality of cost effectiveness studies in systematic reviews is problematic
    Authors' reply

Quality of cost effectiveness studies in systematic reviews is problematic

The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below.

EDITOR---Witten et al reviewed the cost effectiveness of telemedicine.1 In their response on bmj.com they confuse the evaluation of quality with levels of evidence and study design.2 Quality should not be judged on levels (strength) of evidence or whether health consequences were measured but on how well these were undertaken and reported.3

Additionally, studies were rated on the "presence of a clear hypothesis." Although essential for assessing efficacy, this is less important for economic evaluations. Hypotheses require statistical testing to acceptance or rejection of the null hypothesis; economic evaluations typically use point estimates and, without variance, cannot be subjected to statistical testing. Hence, sensitivity analyses are required for testing the robustness of results. A clear statement of aims is required, and as noted by Witten et al, most economic evaluations do clearly state the aims.

Economic evaluations of telemedicine often concentrate on costs and cost minimisation, assuming health . . . [Full text of this article]
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to StumbleUpon StumbleUpon   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?

Relevant Article

Systematic review of cost effectiveness studies of telemedicine interventions
Pamela S Whitten, Frances S Mair, Alan Haycox, Carl R May, Tracy L Williams, and Seth Hellmich
BMJ 2002 324: 1434-1437. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Access jobs at BMJ Careers
Whats new online at Student BMJ