Skip to main page content
Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
, 10 (2), e034463

Reproducible Research Practices, Openness and Transparency in Health Economic Evaluations: Study Protocol for a Cross-Sectional Comparative Analysis

Affiliations

Reproducible Research Practices, Openness and Transparency in Health Economic Evaluations: Study Protocol for a Cross-Sectional Comparative Analysis

Ferrán Catalá-López et al. BMJ Open.

Abstract

Introduction: There has been a growing awareness of the need for rigorously and transparent reported health research, to ensure the reproducibility of studies by future researchers. Health economic evaluations, the comparative analysis of alternative interventions in terms of their costs and consequences, have been promoted as an important tool to inform decision-making. The objective of this study will be to investigate the extent to which articles of economic evaluations of healthcare interventions indexed in MEDLINE incorporate research practices that promote transparency, openness and reproducibility.

Methods and analysis: This is the study protocol for a cross-sectional comparative analysis. We registered the study protocol within the Open Science Framework (osf.io/gzaxr). We will evaluate a random sample of 600 cost-effectiveness analysis publications, a specific form of health economic evaluations, indexed in MEDLINE during 2012 (n=200), 2019 (n=200) and 2022 (n=200). We will include published papers written in English reporting an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio in terms of costs per life years gained, quality-adjusted life years and/or disability-adjusted life years. Screening and selection of articles will be conducted by at least two researchers. Reproducible research practices, openness and transparency in each article will be extracted using a standardised data extraction form by multiple researchers, with a 33% random sample (n=200) extracted in duplicate. Information on general, methodological and reproducibility items will be reported, stratified by year, citation of the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement and journal. Risk ratios with 95% CIs will be calculated to represent changes in reporting between 2012-2019 and 2019-2022.

Ethics and dissemination: Due to the nature of the proposed study, no ethical approval will be required. All data will be deposited in a cross-disciplinary public repository. It is anticipated the study findings could be relevant to a variety of audiences. Study findings will be disseminated at scientific conferences and published in peer-reviewed journals.

Keywords: cost-effectiveness analysis; data sharing; methodology; quality; reporting; reproducibility.

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: None declared.

Similar articles

See all similar articles

References

    1. Nosek BA, Alter G, Banks GC, et al. Scientific standards. promoting an open research culture. Science 2015;348:1422–5. 10.1126/science.aab2374 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Begley CG, Buchan AM, Dirnagl U. Robust research: institutions must do their part for reproducibility. Nature 2015;525:25–7. 10.1038/525025a - DOI - PubMed
    1. Goodman SN, Fanelli D, Ioannidis JPA. What does research reproducibility mean? Sci Transl Med 2016;8:341ps12 10.1126/scitranslmed.aaf5027 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Iqbal SA, Wallach JD, Khoury MJ, et al. Reproducible research practices and transparency across the biomedical literature. PLoS Biol 2016;14:e1002333 10.1371/journal.pbio.1002333 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Wallach JD, Boyack KW, Ioannidis JPA. Reproducible research practices, transparency, and open access data in the biomedical literature, 2015-2017. PLoS Biol 2018;16:e2006930 10.1371/journal.pbio.2006930 - DOI - PMC - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources

Feedback