Critique of an Economic Evaluation Using the Drummond Checklist

By Doran, Christopher M. | Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, November 2010 | Go to article overview
Save to active project

Critique of an Economic Evaluation Using the Drummond Checklist

Doran, Christopher M., Applied Health Economics and Health Policy

In this issue of Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Sladkevicius et al.[1] report the results of an economic evaluation of establishing a neonatal screening programme for phenylketonuria (PKU) in Libya. The authors undertook a cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) and a return on investment analysis. Against a background of limited resources and rational decision making, economic evaluations have been used more frequently over the past 2 decades as pressures to control healthcare spending have increased.[2] The central purpose of an economic evaluation is to compare the relative value of different interventions in creating better health, longer life or a return on investment.[3] The results of such evaluations are typically summarized as a ratio, where the denominator reflects the gain in health from an intervention (measured as units natural to the programme at hand, such as life-years gained, for a CEA or converted to monetary terms for a cost-benefit analysis [CBA]), and the numerator reflects the cost of obtaining that health gain. A variant of CEA, cost-utility analysis (CUA) measures the gain according to health-state preference scores or utility weights, thus providing an opportunity to measure the quality of life-years gained (or disability-adjusted life-years averted), not just the crude number of years.[3]

Given the rise in popularity of the use of economic evaluations, guidelines have been developed to improve the methodological rigour, and hence comparability, of each evaluation. Two of the more commonly cited references are the Washington Consensus Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine[2] and a textbook by Drummond et al.[3] Both provide recommendations for the conduct of economic evaluations in order to improve their quality. Drummond et al.[3] developed a checklist for assessing economic evaluations, which provides useful guidance for those undertaking their own study. It is in the general context of these guidelines that the contribution by Sladkevicius et al.[1] is critiqued.

1. Was a Well Defined Question Posed in Answerable Form?

The Libyan healthcare system is faced with resource constraints, with only 3.5% of total GDP being allocated to health. Libya's population is characterized by large families, high maternal and paternal age and high rates of consanguineous marriages, which are thought to increase the prevalence of disabling and expensive inherited metabolic diseases.[1] With the evident success of neighbouring countries in initiating neonatal screening, primarily for PKU, which can lead to a patient having a healthy life, the Libyan Government is considering a neonatal screening programme for PKU. Against this rationale, the authors' research question is timely, relevant and clearly stated as an examination of the cost effectiveness of establishing a national neonatal screening programme for PKU in Libya from a societal perspective.

2. Was a Comprehensive Description of the Competing Alternatives Given?

The authors provide an excellent overview of the current management of PKU in Libya and model the proposed screening intervention on a protocol produced by the Medical Advisory Panel of the National Society for Phenylketonuria,[4] following adaptation to reflect the Libyan infrastructure.

3. Was the Effectiveness of the Programme Established?

The authors based their results on a decision model constructed in Microsoft® Excel. The model was populated with data collected from experts, families of patients with PKU and secondary data sources. The primary outcome used in the economic evaluation was the incremental number of life-years gained. The time-horizon of the model comprised the shelf life of the screening equipment and the lifetime of patients with PKU. In a sensitivity analysis, the authors varied, among other things, the potential incidence of PKU and life expectancy of treated PKU patients.

4. Were All the Important and Relevant Costs and Consequences for Each Alternative Identified?

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Sign up now for a free, 1-day trial and receive full access to:

  • Questia's entire collection
  • Automatic bibliography creation
  • More helpful research tools like notes, citations, and highlights
  • Ad-free environment

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
Loading One moment ...
Project items
Cite this article

Cited article

Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

Cited article

Critique of an Economic Evaluation Using the Drummond Checklist


Text size Smaller Larger
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

While we understand printed pages are helpful to our users, this limitation is necessary to help protect our publishers' copyrighted material and prevent its unlawful distribution. We are sorry for any inconvenience.
Full screen

matching results for page

Cited passage

Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

Cited passage

Welcome to the new Questia Reader

The Questia Reader has been updated to provide you with an even better online reading experience.  It is now 100% Responsive, which means you can read our books and articles on any sized device you wish.  All of your favorite tools like notes, highlights, and citations are still here, but the way you select text has been updated to be easier to use, especially on touchscreen devices.  Here's how:

1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
2. Click or tap the last word you want to select.

OK, got it!

Thanks for trying Questia!

Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

For full access in an ad-free environment, sign up now for a FREE, 1-day trial.

Already a member? Log in now.

Are you sure you want to delete this highlight?