Assessment 3-1

ASSESSMENT 3
• Due date: 2 November 2023 (by 2pm)

• Weighting: 40% of total mark
• Word limit: 1,500 words
Description: This assignment is a critical appraisal of a research output. You will use the skills learnt to critically appraise a published literature. You are
expected to critically appraise the published paper by Briffa et al (listed below). You need to address a number of issues applying a checklist (see below for
template) which has been discussed during our teaching sessions. You are required to use the checklist points to provide clear and concise answers for each of
the checklist points. You should conclude with a statement (your opinion) on the overall quality of the published economic evaluation. Please note that this
paper reports on an economic evaluation conducted alongside a clinical study and is not a model-based economic evaluation.
• Briffa T, et al. Cost-effectiveness of rehabilitation after an acute coronary event: a randomised controlled trial. MJA 2005; 183: 450–455
Key assessment criteria include:

• Knowledge and skills to
o recognise and apply the key steps in critically appraising an economic evaluation
o understand the concepts underpinning economic evaluation and approaches to identify and value costs and outcomes
o Ability to highlight the strengths and weaknesses of the economic evaluation performed (and overall assessment)
REFERENCING
If you do any outside reading and incorporate elements of this into your work, a reference list should be included. Please note that references are not included in
the word count. The reference list should appear at the end of assignments on a separate page. The Vancouver system of referencing is recommended. If you are
not familiar with this system, please visit:
https://play.flinders.edu.au/media/Vancouver+Style+Guide/1_5pu945t1
Note: All assignments must be submitted in a Microsoft Word file

Briffa T, et al
Questions Yes / No / Comment

Unclear/Not
applicable
1 Title: (5 points)
• Has the study been identified as an
economic evaluation (or more specific
terms such as ‘cost-effectiveness
analysis’ have been used).
• The interventions being compared?
2 Background (Introduction): (10 points)

• An explicit statement of the broader
context for the study, including the
economic importance of the research
question?
• Is there a well-defined question?
• Target population (key characteristics),
setting and location?
3 Study perspective: (5 points)

• Has the perspective of the study been
clearly stated?
• Whether it is related to the costs being
evaluated
Briffa T, et al

Unclear/Not
applicable
4 Selection of alternative interventions?
(5 points)
• Were alternative interventions
described in sufficient details?
• The rationale for the choice of the
alternative interventions should be
given (Why they were chosen)
5 What is the time horizon of the study?

(10 points)
• Is it appropriate given the condition

under study? Why?
Briffa T, et al

Unclear/Not
applicable
6 Choice of outcome measure and valuation (15
points)
• What health outcomes were used as
the (primary) measure(s) of benefit
in the economic evaluation? (and
their relevance to the type of
economic evaluation? e.g., Cost-
utility analysis and QALYs)
• Measurement of preference-based
outcomes
• (If applicable), were the methods
and population used to elicit
preferences presented in sufficient
details?
• Data sources to estimate clinical

effectiveness? Were details
provided?
Briffa T, et al

Unclear/Not
applicable
7 Choice of health care resources and valuation
(10 points)
• What resources were used for the
economic evaluation?
• Were all important and relevant
items identified and included in the
analysis?
• Were appropriate methods and data
sources used to accurately estimate
appropriate physical units and unit
costs?
8 Cost adjustment? (e.g., discounting, inflation)
(5 points)
• Did the study provide details about
the methods used?
• Were the methods appropriate?
Briffa T, et al

Unclear/Not
applicable
9 Analysis and presentation (5 points)
• Were mean values for the main
categories of estimated costs and
outcomes reported?
• Were incremental figures
reported?
• Was the ICER reported?
Briffa T, et al

Unclear/Not
applicable
10 Characterising uncertainty (10 points)
• Were the confidence intervals around the
key study variables reported?
• Were sensitivity analyses conducted to
characterise uncertainty in estimates of
costs or outcomes?
• Did the study provide details about the
approach used (e.g. one-way sensitivity
analysis)
• Was justification given for the choice of
parameters to vary and the range of values
over which the parameters are varied?
• Were the study results sensitive to changes
in the values?
•
11 Discussion (8 points)
• Did the study provide the summary of key
findings? (and how the findings support
the conclusions reached)
• Were the results compared with those of
other studies that had investigated the
same questions?
• Did the study discuss key limitations of
the findings?
Briffa T, et al

Unclear/Not
applicable
12 Source of funding (2 points)
• Did the study describe how the
study was funded and the role of
the funder in the design, conduct,
and reporting of the analysis?
Overall judgment (10 point)

(1) Briefly present key strengths and weaknesses relevant to the validity of the findings (7 points)
(2) Given above, how do you classify the published study? (3 points)
• Acceptable
• Low quality
References
If you do any outside reading and incorporate elements of this into your work, a reference list should be included. Please note that references are not
included in the word count.

Assessment 3-1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Assessment 3-1

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Assessment 3-1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ASSESSMENT 3

• Due date: 2 November 2023 (by 2pm)

Key assessment criteria include:

Note: All assignments must be submitted in a Microsoft Word file

Questions Yes / No / Comment

2 Background (Introduction): (10 points)

3 Study perspective: (5 points)

Questions Yes / No / Comment

5 What is the time horizon of the study?

• Is it appropriate given the condition

Questions Yes / No / Comment

• Data sources to estimate clinical

Questions Yes / No / Comment

Questions Yes / No / Comment

Questions Yes / No / Comment

Questions Yes / No / Comment

Overall judgment (10 point)

You might also like

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.