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:
The effective capture of outcome measures in
the healthcare setting can be traced back to Florence Nightingale’s
investigation of the in-patient mortality of soldiers wounded in
the Crimean war in the 1850s. Only relatively recently has the formalised collection of outcomes
data into Registries been recognised as valuable in itself. With the advent of surgeon league tables and a move towards value
based health care, individuals are being driven to collect, store
and interpret data. Following the success of the National Joint Registry, the British
Association of Spine Surgeons instituted the British Spine Registry.
Since its launch in 2012, over 650 users representing the whole
surgical team have registered and during this time, more than 27 000
patients have been entered onto the database. There has been significant publicity regarding the collection
of outcome measures after surgery, including patient-reported scores.
Over 12 000 forms have been directly entered by patients themselves,
with many more entered by the surgical teams. Questions abound: who should have access to the data produced
by the Registry and how should they use it? How should the results
be reported and in what forum? Cite this article:
Due to economic constraints, it has been suggested that joint replacement patients can be followed up in primary care. There are clinical, ethical and academic reasons why we must ensure that our joint replacements are appropriately clinically and radiologically followed up to minimise complications. This Editorial discusses this.
