- Is this report really asking an economic question
- comparing well-defined alternative courses of action?
- with a specified point of view (a hospital, ministry of
health or preferably society as a whole) from which the costs
and effects are being viewed?
- Does it cite good evidence (that would meet criteria in the
single study and the
systematic review tables) of the efficacy of the alternatives?
- Does it identify alll the costs and effects you think it should
and did it select credible measures for them?
|
Reference: Evidence-based Medicine - Sackett, Richardson, Rosenberg
and Haynes.
Are
the results of this economic analysis valid?