Table 2

Quality assessment

The 10-item Drummond checklist
  1. Was a well-defined question posed in answerable form?

  2. Was a comprehensive description of the competing alternatives given (ie, can you tell who did what to whom, where and how often)?

  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 (eg, hours of nursing time, number of physician visits, lost work-days, gained life years)?

  6. Were the cost and consequences valued credibly?

  7. Were costs and consequences adjusted for differential timing?

  8. Was an incremental analysis of costs and consequences of alternatives performed?

  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?

Author, year12345678910
Raikou, 2008×××00××
Fishman, 2005×000×
Ratcliffe, 19970
Holtgrave, 2009×
Hurley, 2008×00
Stevens, 2002×0××
Secker-Walker, 1997
Kotz, 2011×000×
Villanti, 2012×
Higashi, 2011×
Brown, 2014×00
  • Yes=✓.

  • No=×.

  • Not clear=0 (in cases where the information provided was not satisfactory, thus making it difficult for the reviewer to make a conclusion).