The extent and depth of routine health care data
are growing at an ever-increasing rate, forming huge repositories
of information. These repositories can answer a vast array of questions.
However, an understanding of the purpose of the dataset used and
the quality of the data collected are paramount to determine the
reliability of the result obtained. This Editorial describes the importance of adherence to sound
methodological principles in the reporting and publication of research
using ‘big’ data, with a suggested reporting framework for future Cite this article:
Health economic evaluations potentially provide
valuable information to clinicians, health care administrators,
and policy makers regarding the financial implications of decisions
about the care of patients. The highest quality research should
be used to inform decisions that have direct impact on the access
to care and the outcome of treatment. However, economic analyses
are often complex and use research methods which are relatively unfamiliar
to clinicians. Furthermore, health economic data have substantial
national, regional, and institutional variability, which can limit
the external validity of the results of a study. Therefore, minimum
guidelines that aim to standardise the quality and transparency
of reporting health economic research have been developed, and instruments
are available to assist in the assessment of its quality and the
interpretation of results. The purpose of this editorial is to discuss the principal types
of health economic studies, to review the most common instruments
for judging the quality of these studies and to describe current
reporting guidelines. Recommendations for the submission of these
types of studies to Cite this article:
