title: Quality assessment of economic analyses in pediatric urology.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  To describe and evaluate economic analyses or economic evaluations in pediatric urologic literature, including study types such as cost-effectiveness analysis, which are increasingly common in the medical literature.
  
  
  METHODS
  We performed a systematic literature review of the MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases (1990-2011) to identify economic analyses of pediatric urologic topics. Studies were evaluated using published quality metrics. We examined the analysis type, data sources, perspective, methodology, sensitivity analyses, and the reporting of methods, results, limitations, and conclusions.
  
  
  RESULTS
  We identified 2945 nonduplicated studies, 60 of which met inclusion criteria. Economic analyses of pediatric urologic topics increased in number during the study period, from 1 study (2%) in 1990 to 7 (12%) in 2010 (P <.0001 for trend). The most common types of analyses were cost-effectiveness and cost-minimization (22 each, 37%), typically performed from the payer perspective (26 [43%]). Although 44 (73%) correctly identified the analysis type, only 21 (35%) correctly identified the study perspective. Optimal data sources were used in 7 studies (11%). Appropriate inflationary discounting was used in 17 of 53 (32%). Sensitivity analyses were not reported in 31 of 53 (58%). The descriptions of study methods were adequate in 43 studies (72%), assumptions were adequately reported in 42 (70%), and 37 (62%) adequately discussed limitations.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Although economic analyses are increasing in the pediatric urologic literature, there is a need for standardization in methods and reporting. Future investigations should attempt to follow standardized reporting guidelines and should pay particular attention to reporting of methods and results, including a comprehensive discussion of limitations.
authors: Division of Pediatric Urology, Children's Hospital Los Angeles, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90027, USA. pkokorowski@chla.usc.edu
authors: Paul J
authors: PJ
authors: Kokorowski
authors: Jonathan C
authors: JC
authors: Routh
authors: Caleb P
authors: CP
authors: Nelson
mesh_terms: D003362:Cost-Benefit Analysis / Q000592:standards*; D017048:Health Care Costs; D006801:Humans; D010372:Pediatrics / Q000191:economics*; D014570:Urologic Diseases / Q000191:economics*; D014572:Urology / Q000191:economics*
references: Pharmacoeconomics. 2012 Mar;30(3):219-27
references: 22074610
references: Med Care. 2009 Jul;47(7 Suppl 1):S28-32
references: 19536023
references: Med Care. 2003 Jan;41(1):32-44
references: 12544542
references: Open Med. 2009;3(3):e123-30
references: 21603045
references: Value Health. 2003 Sep-Oct;6(5):584-94
references: 14627065
references: Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2008 Summer;24(3):318-25
references: 18601800
references: Health Technol Assess. 2004 Dec;8(49):iii-iv, 1-192
references: 15544708
references: J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2012 May-Jun;19(3):423-38
references: 21984590
references: BMC Med Res Methodol. 2007 Feb 15;7:10
references: 17302989
references: Value Health. 2007 Jul-Aug;10(4):305-16
references: 17645685
references: J Urol. 2007 Nov;178(5):1867-74
references: 17868735