Skip to main content

Table 2 Methodological quality assessment of economic evaluations using Drummond’s checklist

From: Surgical treatments for women with stress urinary incontinence: a systematic review of economic evidence

  1. N/A not applicable
  2. *1.Was a well-defined question posed in answerable form? 2. Was a comprehensive description of the competing alternatives given? 3. Was the effectiveness of the programme or services established? 4. Were all the important and relevant costs and consequences for each alternative identified? 5. Were costs and consequences measured accurately in appropriate physical units? 6. Were the cost and consequences valued credibly? 7. Were costs and consequences adjusted for differential timing? 9. Was allowance made for uncertainty in the estimates of costs and consequences? 10. Did the presentation and discussion of study results include all issues of concern to users?
Back to article page

Systematic Reviews

ISSN: 2046-4053