Accuracy of terminology and methodology in economic analyses in otolaryngology.
OBJECTIVE
Economic studies increasingly guide health care resource allocation decisions. Because rigorous adherence to accepted definitions and research techniques is critical to ensure accuracy, we evaluated the terminology and methods of otolaryngology economic analyses.


METHODS
A total of 71 articles published from 1990 to 1999 in 6 peer-reviewed otolaryngology journals with terms such as "cost-effective" in their title or representing economic analyses were reviewed for terminology and use of established methodology guidelines.


RESULTS
Over half (35 of 66) of terms such as "cost-effective" were used incorrectly, and 60% of articles (39 of 64) confused "charge" and "cost" data. Eleven percent (7 of 64) of papers specified the perspective of their analysis. About half (17 of 30) reported a summary measure such as a cost-effectiveness ratio. Only one third (23 of 63) performed sensitivity analyses.


CONCLUSIONS
Adherence to accepted definitions and research methods is inconsistent, although we did note moderate improvements in making the distinction between costs and charges, defining of study perspective, and performing sensitivity analysis.


CONCLUSIONS
Greater attention to both terminology and methodology can enhance the quality of economic analyses and ultimately improve certain resource allocation decisions.
Kezirian
E J
EJ
University of Washington, Seattle 98195-6515, USA. kezirian@u.washington.edu
Yueh
B
B
D015706:Bibliometrics; D003362:Cost-Benefit Analysis; D003365:Costs and Cost Analysis; D006302:Health Services Research / Q000191:economics / Q000379:methods*; D006801:Humans; D010036:Otolaryngology / Q000191:economics*; D012107:Research Design; D009626:Terminology as Topic