社区水氟化经济评价的质量评估:系统综述。

IF 0.9 4区 医学 Q3 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE Community dental health Pub Date : 2024-05-31 DOI:10.1922/CDH_00167Cronin11
J Cronin, S Moore, M Harding, H Whelton, N Woods
{"title":"社区水氟化经济评价的质量评估:系统综述。","authors":"J Cronin, S Moore, M Harding, H Whelton, N Woods","doi":"10.1922/CDH_00167Cronin11","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To critically appraise the methodological conduct and reporting quality of economic evaluations (EE) of community water fluoridation (CWF).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A systematic literature search was conducted in general databases and specialist directories of the economic literature. The Consensus on Health Economic Criteria list (CHEC) appraised the methodological quality while the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) assessed the reporting quality of included studies.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 1,138 records were identified, of which 18 met the inclusion criteria. Cost analysis emerged as the most prevalent type of EE, though a growing trend towards conducting full EEs is observed. CHEC revealed the items most frequently unfulfilled were the study design, measurement and valuation of costs and outcomes, while CHEERS also identified reporting deficiencies in these aspects. Furthermore, the review highlights subtleties in methodological aspects that may not be discerned by CHEC, such as the estimation of the impact of fluoridation and the inclusion of treatment savings within cost estimates.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>While numerous studies were conducted before publication of these assessment instruments, this review reveals that a noteworthy subset of studies exhibited good methodological conduct and reporting quality. There has been a steady improvement in the methodological and reporting quality over time, with recently published EEs largely adhering to best practice guidelines. The evidence presented will assist policymakers in leveraging the available evidence effectively to inform resource allocation decisions. It may also serve as a resource for researchers to enhance the methodological and reporting standards of future EEs of CWF.</p>","PeriodicalId":10647,"journal":{"name":"Community dental health","volume":" ","pages":"95-105"},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A quality appraisal of economic evaluations of community water fluoridation: A systematic review.\",\"authors\":\"J Cronin, S Moore, M Harding, H Whelton, N Woods\",\"doi\":\"10.1922/CDH_00167Cronin11\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To critically appraise the methodological conduct and reporting quality of economic evaluations (EE) of community water fluoridation (CWF).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A systematic literature search was conducted in general databases and specialist directories of the economic literature. The Consensus on Health Economic Criteria list (CHEC) appraised the methodological quality while the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) assessed the reporting quality of included studies.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 1,138 records were identified, of which 18 met the inclusion criteria. Cost analysis emerged as the most prevalent type of EE, though a growing trend towards conducting full EEs is observed. CHEC revealed the items most frequently unfulfilled were the study design, measurement and valuation of costs and outcomes, while CHEERS also identified reporting deficiencies in these aspects. Furthermore, the review highlights subtleties in methodological aspects that may not be discerned by CHEC, such as the estimation of the impact of fluoridation and the inclusion of treatment savings within cost estimates.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>While numerous studies were conducted before publication of these assessment instruments, this review reveals that a noteworthy subset of studies exhibited good methodological conduct and reporting quality. There has been a steady improvement in the methodological and reporting quality over time, with recently published EEs largely adhering to best practice guidelines. The evidence presented will assist policymakers in leveraging the available evidence effectively to inform resource allocation decisions. It may also serve as a resource for researchers to enhance the methodological and reporting standards of future EEs of CWF.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":10647,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Community dental health\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"95-105\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-05-31\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Community dental health\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1922/CDH_00167Cronin11\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Community dental health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1922/CDH_00167Cronin11","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的批判性地评估社区水氟化(CWF)经济评估(EE)的方法和报告质量:方法:在经济文献的通用数据库和专业目录中进行了系统的文献检索。健康经济标准共识清单(CHEC)对方法学质量进行了评估,而健康经济评估报告标准(CHEERS)则对纳入研究的报告质量进行了评估:结果:共发现 1 138 条记录,其中 18 条符合纳入标准。成本分析是最常见的 EE 类型,但进行全面 EE 的趋势也日益明显。CHEC 显示,最常见的未完成项目是研究设计、成本和结果的测量和估值,而 CHEERS 也发现了这些方面的报告缺陷。此外,审查还强调了 CHEC 可能无法发现的方法学方面的微妙之处,如对氟化影响的估计以及将治疗节省的费用纳入成本估算等:结论:虽然在这些评估工具发布之前已经进行了大量研究,但本综述显示,值得注意的一部分研究在方法和报告质量方面表现良好。随着时间的推移,研究方法和报告质量都在稳步提高,最近出版的环境教育报告基本上都遵守了最佳实践指南。所提供的证据将有助于决策者有效利用现有证据,为资源分配决策提供依据。它还可作为研究人员的一种资源,用于提高未来化武框架环境评价的方法和报告标准。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
A quality appraisal of economic evaluations of community water fluoridation: A systematic review.

Objectives: To critically appraise the methodological conduct and reporting quality of economic evaluations (EE) of community water fluoridation (CWF).

Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted in general databases and specialist directories of the economic literature. The Consensus on Health Economic Criteria list (CHEC) appraised the methodological quality while the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) assessed the reporting quality of included studies.

Results: A total of 1,138 records were identified, of which 18 met the inclusion criteria. Cost analysis emerged as the most prevalent type of EE, though a growing trend towards conducting full EEs is observed. CHEC revealed the items most frequently unfulfilled were the study design, measurement and valuation of costs and outcomes, while CHEERS also identified reporting deficiencies in these aspects. Furthermore, the review highlights subtleties in methodological aspects that may not be discerned by CHEC, such as the estimation of the impact of fluoridation and the inclusion of treatment savings within cost estimates.

Conclusions: While numerous studies were conducted before publication of these assessment instruments, this review reveals that a noteworthy subset of studies exhibited good methodological conduct and reporting quality. There has been a steady improvement in the methodological and reporting quality over time, with recently published EEs largely adhering to best practice guidelines. The evidence presented will assist policymakers in leveraging the available evidence effectively to inform resource allocation decisions. It may also serve as a resource for researchers to enhance the methodological and reporting standards of future EEs of CWF.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Community dental health
Community dental health 医学-牙科与口腔外科
CiteScore
2.20
自引率
11.80%
发文量
75
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: The journal is concerned with dental public health and related subjects. Dental public health is the science and the art of preventing oral disease, promoting oral health, and improving the quality of life through the organised efforts of society. The discipline covers a wide range and includes such topics as: -oral epidemiology- oral health services research- preventive dentistry - especially in relation to communities- oral health education and promotion- clinical research - with particular emphasis on the care of special groups- behavioural sciences related to dentistry- decision theory- quality of life- risk analysis- ethics and oral health economics- quality assessment. The journal publishes scientific articles on the relevant fields, review articles, discussion papers, news items, and editorials. It is of interest to dentists working in dental public health and to other professionals concerned with disease prevention, health service planning, and health promotion throughout the world. In the case of epidemiology of oral diseases the Journal prioritises national studies unless local studies have major methodological innovations or information of particular interest.
期刊最新文献
The effect of virtual reality for anxiety and pain in dentistry: A systematic review and meta-analysis. A qualitative exploration of barriers and facilitators to inclusion of dentistry in a regional shared health care record. Tooth-loss related masticatory and aesthetic experiences among middle-aged and older adult Danes. Ethnic Inequalities in the Functional Dentition Among British Adults: A Multilevel Analysis. Independent contributions of nuclear and extended families to risk of early childhood caries among children from low socio-economic status in India.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1