British Medical Journal by termo


									                               Downloaded from on 6 December 2007

                        New BMJ policy on economic evaluations
                        Dawn Craig, John Nixon, Nigel Armstrong, Julie Glanville, Jos Kleijnen, Michael
                        Drummond, Tracy Roberts, Alastair M Gray, Andrew Briggs, Philip Clarke,
                        Charles Normand, Christopher J McCabe, Jennifer Roberts and Richard Smith

                        BMJ 2003;326;445-

                        Updated information and services can be found at:

                        These include:
       References       This article cites 11 articles, 8 of which can be accessed free at:

Rapid responses         You can respond to this article at:

    Email alerting      Receive free email alerts when new articles cite this article - sign up in the box at
          service       the top left of the article


To order reprints follow the "Request Permissions" link in the navigation box
To subscribe to BMJ go to:
                                            Downloaded from on 6 December 2007

New BMJ policy on economic evaluations                                                                                    relevant policy makers exercise restraint
                                                                                                                          until the full information is available.
                                                                                                                              Secondly, no incentive is given in the
                                                                                                                          BMJ policy for clinicians to change their
Response of NHS Economic Evaluation                of the journal—this will constitute an                                 practice. Presumably clinicians send results
Database Research Team                             improvement. If, however, the new policy                               to the Lancet for higher impact factors and
Editor—We, the NHS Economic Evaluation             results in the combination of clinical and                             wider dissemination. If economists cannot
Database Research Team, agree with Smith           economic results in one short paper, this                              persuade colleagues to submit the clinical
that economic evaluations should contain           may be a step backwards.                                               paper alongside the economic paper to the
comprehensive reporting of both clinical           Dawn Craig research fellow in health economics                         BMJ, they will resort to submitting results to
effectiveness and economic analysis and that                                                        economic journals for which a different style
the BMJ is right to implement this new             John Nixon research fellow                                             for different specialist audiences would be
                                                   Nigel Armstrong research fellow
policy.1 How the clinical trial results (which                                                                            required, ensuring even poorer dissemina-
                                                   Julie Glanville associate director
inform the economic evaluation) are                Jos Kleijnen director                                                  tion to clinical audiences and policy makers.
obtained is often paramount to the under-          NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination,                                  Finally, your editorial emphasised strong
standing and quality of the economic analy-        University of York, York YO10 5DD                                      support for keeping clinical and economic
sis conducted.2                                    Michael Drummond director                                              results together, and Smith told us to send
     Research reports are included and             Centre for Health Economics, University of York                        “somebody else your clinical results and us
abstracted in full on the NHS Economic                                                                                    your economic results, and we will send
                                                   1 Smith R. New BMJ policy on economic evaluations. BMJ
Evaluation Database (            2002;325:1124. (16 November.)                                        them back, politely.” May I therefore ask,
crd)—if they explicitly report costs and clini-    2 Hoffmann C, Stoykova B, Nixon J, Glanville J, Misso K,               politely, is the converse also true? Will you
cal outcomes for an intervention and at least        Drummond M. Do health-care decision makers find
                                                     economic evaluations useful? The findings of focus group
                                                                                                                          return clinical trials if submitted without any
one comparator.3 However, to critique the            research in UK health authorities. Value Health                      economic results?
method adopted in the effectiveness study            2002;5:71-8.
                                                                                                                          Tracy Roberts lecturer in health economics
                                                   3 NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. Improving
underpinning the economic evaluation                 access to cost-effectiveness information for health care decision-   University of Birmingham, Health Economics
appropriately, our template requires infor-          making: the NHS economic evaluation database. 2nd ed. York:          Facility, Birmingham B15 2RT
mation that is often omitted in the report of        University of York, 2001. (CRD report No 6.)               
                                                   4 Drummond MF, Jefferson TO. Guidelines for authors and
the economic evaluation. When the parent             peer reviewers of economic submissions to the BMJ. BMJ
                                                     1996:313;275-83.                                                     1 Smith R. New BMJ policy on economic evaluations. BMJ
clinical study has been previously published                                                                                2002;325:1124. (16 November.)
elsewhere, we obtain the study and use that                                                                               2 UK Collaborative ECMO (Extracorporeal Membrane
alongside the economic research when writ-                                                                                  Oxygenation) Trial Group. UK collaborative randomised
                                                   Will the BMJ return clinical trials if                                   trial of neonatal extracorporeal membrane oxygenation.
ing the abstract. The abstract on the              submitted without any economic results?                                  Lancet 1996; 348:75-82
database then provides information on sam-                                                                                3 Roberts TE. Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation Eco-
ple selection, study design, method of analy-      Editor—The implications of the BMJ’s new                                 nomics Working Group on behalf of the Extracorporeal
                                                                                                                            Membrane Oxygenation Trial Steering Group. Economic
sis, and so on, with the fact that the relevant    policy for economic evaluations are                                      evaluation and randomised trial. BMJ 1998;317:911-6.
information is cited from the parent study.        unclear.1
     Adhering to published guidelines, such            Firstly, a lag often exists between the
                                                   clinical and economic results, making simul-                           Economic evaluations should be judged
as those provided by the BMJ,4 should                                                                                     on scientific merit
produce publications of the highest quality,       taneous submission difficult. Typically, clini-
but authors are still likely to feel the need to   cians are eager to disseminate important                               Editor—Health economists have been
be selective in their reporting, given word        clinical results immediately. For example, the                         grateful for the BMJ’s hitherto supportive
limits. If authors are required to report more     extracorporeal membrane oxygenation                                    stance towards the publication of economic
effectiveness data other crucial aspects of the    (ECMO) trial was among the first research                              evaluations. The proposed new policy not to
economic evaluation might receive less             projects to incorporate economic evaluation                            publish economic evaluations unless also
attention. The focus for BMJ editors should        in its design from the outset. But the                                 offered the clinical results is disappointing
be to ensure that reporting of both                preliminary clinical results were written up                           and misjudged.1
important components of economic evalua-           and fast tracked to the Lancet before I was                                Firstly, this policy denies the fact that,
tions receives appropriate attention from          even employed to continue the economic                                 although clinical and economic results from
the authors.                                       evaluation.2 The economic evaluation was                               a trial are both components of an overall
     If the policy results in full reporting of    published in the BMJ years later, having                               evaluation, they also have many differences,
both clinical and economic results in one          required the clinical evidence in its analysis                         often including the funding agencies sup-
place—for example, two papers in one issue         and appropriate sensitivity analyses and                               porting them, the researchers, and the
                                                   having undergone delay to publication. 3                               timescale over which they are performed
                                                       Would it have benefited anyone to with-                            and published. Perhaps most importantly,
                                                   hold dramatic clinical results until the                               important trials are often prepared for an
                                                   economic results were ready? Clinical results                          international audience, but economic evalu-
                                                   are often more generalisable to an inter-                              ations usually relate to specific healthcare
                                                   national audience than the concurrent                                  systems; large trials may generate the need
                                                   economic results. The limitations of any                               for several country specific economic evalu-
                                                   clinical information in the absence of                                 ations.
                                                   economic evidence should be made explicit.                                 These differences justify researchers in
                                                   The pertinent concern is surely to ensure                              choosing to submit clinical and economic

BMJ VOLUME 326     22 FEBRUARY 2003                                                                                                                               445

To top