Reporting Guidelines for Health Economic Evaluations: BMJ Guidelines for Authors and Peer Reviewers of Economic Submissions

The British Medical Journal (BMJ) guideline for authors and peer reviewers of economic submissions (BMJ EE) was created to improve the quality of economic articles published by the BMJ. The guideline is specifically designed for three groups. Firstly, for authors to understand what is required when reporting their work and submitting an article for publication in the BMJ. Secondly, as a checklist for reviewers to use when appraising the suitability of a submission. Finally, as a checklist for editors to use when deciding on the manuscript's suitability for publication. This chapter compares current version of BMJ EE with previous versions, and provides evidence of effectiveness of guideline. It discusses endorsement and adherence and cautions and limitations of the BMJ EE. The reporting guidelines were developed through a process consistent with that of the CONSORT initiative for developing guidelines for the reporting of clinical trials.

References

Drummond, M.F. & Jefferson, T.O. (1996) Guidelines for the authors and peer reviewers of economic submissions to the BMJ. BMJ, 313, 275.
10.1136/bmj.313.7052.275
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
Academy of Managed Care Pharmacy (2010) AMCP Format for Formulary Submissions (Version 3.0). Journal of Managed Care Pharmacy, 16 (1 Suppl.), S1–S29.
Google Scholar
Husereau, D., Drummond, M.F., Petrou S. et al. (2013) Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS): Explanation and Elaboration: A Report of the ISPOR Health Economic Evaluation Publication Guidelines Good Reporting Practices Task Force. Value in Health, 16, 231–50.
10.1016/j.jval.2013.02.002
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
Jefferson, T.O., Smith, R., Yi, Y. et al. (1998) Evaluating the BMJ guidelines on economic submissions – prospective audit of economic submissions to the BMJ and The Lancet. JAMA, 280 (3), 275–277.
10.1001/jama.280.3.275
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
M.R. Gold, J.E. Siegel, L.B. Russell & M.C. Weinstein (eds) (1996) Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine. Oxford University Press, New York.
10.1093/oso/9780195108248.001.0001
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
Weinstein, M.C., Siegel, J.E., Gold, M.R. et al. (1996) Recommendations of the panel on cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. JAMA, 276, 1253–1258.
10.1001/jama.1996.03540150055031
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
International Society for Pharmacoenonomics and Outcomes Research. Pharmacoeconomic guidelines around the world. www.ispor.org/PEguidelines/index.asp [accessed on 30 July 2011].
Google Scholar
Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (2006) Guidelines for the Economic Evaluation of Health Technologies. Canada 3rd edn. CADTH, Ottawa.
Google Scholar
National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence. (July 2008) Guide to the Methods of Technology Appraisal. NICE, London.
Google Scholar
Sculpher, M.J., Claxton, K., Drummond, M.F. & McCabe, C. (2006) Whither trial-based economic evaluation for health care decision making? Health Economics, 15, 677–687.
10.1002/hec.1093
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
Jansen, J.P., Fleurence, R., Devine, B. et al. (2011 Jun) Interpreting indirect treatment comparisons and network meta-analysis for health-care decision making: report of the ISPOR Task Force on Indirect Treatment Comparisons Good Research Practices: part 1. Value in Health, 14 (4), 417–428.
10.1016/j.jval.2011.04.002
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
Hoaglin, D.C., Hawkins, N., Jansen, J.P. et al. (2011) Conducting indirect-treatment-comparison and network-meta-analysis studies: report of the ISPOR Task Force on Indirect Treatment Comparisons Good Research Practices: part 2. Value in Health, 14 (4), 429–437.
10.1016/j.jval.2011.01.011
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
Griffin, S., Claxton, K., Hawkins, N. & Sculpher, M.J. (2006) Probabilistic analysis and computationally expensive models: necessary and required? Value in Health, 9, 244–252.
10.1111/j.1524-4733.2006.00107.x
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
Barton, G.R., Briggs, A.H. & Fenwick, E.A.L. (2009) Optimal cost-effectiveness decisions: the role of the cost-effectiveness acceptability curve (CEAC), the cost-effectiveness acceptability frontier (CEAF), and the expected value of perfection information (EVPI). Value in Health, 11 (5), 886–897.
10.1111/j.1524-4733.2008.00358.x
Web of Science® Google Scholar
Moher, D., Schulz, K.F., Simera, I. & Altman, D.G. (2010) Guidance for Developers of Health Research Reporting Guidelines. PLoS Medicine 7 (2), e1000217.
10.1371/journal.pmed.1000217
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar

Guidelines for Reporting Health Research: A User's Manual