The methodological quality of health economic evaluations for the management of hip fractures: A systematic review of the literature

Developing a novel international undergraduate surgical masterclass during a financial crisis: our 4-year experience

BACKGROUND

Essential Skills in the Management of Surgical Cases (ESMSC) is a novel 3-day international undergraduate surgical masterclass. Its current curriculum (Cores integrated for Research-Ci4R) is built on a tetracore, multiclustered architecture combining high-fidelity and low-fidelity simulation-based learning (SBL), with applied and basic science case-based workshops, and non-technical skills modules. We aimed to report our experience in setting up ESMSC during the global financial crisis.

METHODS

We report the evolution of our curriculum's methodology and summarised the research outcomes related to the objective performance improvement of delegates, the educational environment of the course and the use of mixed-fidelity SBL. Feedback from the last three series of the course was prospectively collected and analysed using univariate statistics on IBM SPSS V.23.

RESULTS

311 medical students across the European Union (EU) were selected from a competitive pool of 1280 applicants during seven series of the course between 2014 and 2017. During this period, curriculum 14 s evolved to the final Ci4R version, which integrates a tetracore structure combining 32 stations of in vivo, ex vivo and dry lab SBL with small group teaching workshops. Ci4R was positively perceived across different educational background students (p>0.05 for any comparison).

CONCLUSIONS

ESMSC is considered an innovative and effective multidisciplinary teaching model by delegates, where it improves delegates objective performance in basic surgical skills. Our experience demonstrates provision of high-quality and free surgical education during a financial crisis, which evolved through a dynamic feedback mechanism. The prospective recording and subsequent analysis of curriculum evolution provides a blueprint to direct development of effective surgical education courses that can be adapted to local needs.

METHODOLOGICAL QUALITY OF ECONOMIC EVALUATIONS ALONGSIDE TRIALS OF KNEE PHYSIOTHERAPY

OBJECTIVES

The methodological quality of an economic evaluation performed alongside a clinical trial can be underestimated if the paper does not report key methodological features. This study discusses methodological assessment issues on the example of a systematic review on cost-effectiveness of physiotherapy for knee osteoarthritis.

METHODS

Six economic evaluation studies included in the systematic review and related clinical trials were assessed using the 10-question check-list by Drummond and the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) scale.

RESULTS

All economic evaluations were performed alongside a clinical trial but the studied interventions were too heterogeneous to be synthesized. Methodological quality of the economic evaluations reported in the papers was not free of drawbacks, and in some cases, it improved when information from the related clinical trial was taken into account.

CONCLUSIONS

Economic evaluation papers dedicate little space to methodological features of related clinical trials; therefore, the methodological quality can be underestimated if evaluated separately from the trials. Future economic evaluations should follow more strictly the recommendations about methodology and the authors should pay special attention to the quality of reporting.

Guidelines for reporting health economic research

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 The Bone & Joint Journal are provided.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2016;98-B:147–51.