Skip to main content

Table 1 Classification scheme for economic evaluations (Drummond 2005)

From: Interventions for drug-using offenders with co-occurring mental health problems: a systematic review and economic appraisal

Are both costs (inputs) and consequences (outputs) of the alternative examined?
Are two or more alternatives compared? No No Yes
Examine consequences only Examine only costs  
1B PARTIAL EVALUATION 1B 2 PARTIAL EVALUATION
Outcome Description Cost description Cost-outcome description
Yes 3A PARTIAL EVALUATION 3B 4 FULL ECONOMIC EVALUATION
Efficacy effectiveness evaluation (e.g., RCT) Cost analysis Cost effectiveness analysis
Cost Utility analysis
Cost benefit analysis
  1. *The basis for the assumed risk (e.g. the median control group risk across studies) is provided in footnotes. The corresponding risk (and its 95 % confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95 % CI)
  2. CI confidence interval
  3. GRADE Working Group grades of evidence
  4. High quality: Further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect
  5. Moderate quality: Further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate
  6. Low quality: Further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate
  7. Very low quality: We are very uncertain about the estimate