ArticleHealth economics2016
Comparison of Economic Evaluation Methods Across Low-income, Middle-income and High-income Countries: What are the Differences and Why?
Article in Health economics, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 36 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
36 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Costs of surgeries in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic literature review.BMJ global health · 2026Pooled it
- Effectiveness and economic impact of interventions targeting healthcare personnel: a systematic review of return on investment.Public health reviews · 2026Pooled it
- Systematic review of methodological approaches in economic evaluations of maternal and neonatal sepsis interventions in low- and middle-income countries.BMC health services research · 2025Pooled it
- Health technology assessment to support health benefits package design: a systematic review of economic evaluation evidence in Zambia.BMC health services research · 2024Pooled it
- Economic evaluations of health system strengthening activities in low-income and middle-income country settings: a methodological systematic review.BMJ global health · 2022Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Systematic Review of Health Economic Evaluations of Diagnostic Tests in Brazil: How accurate are the results?Clinics (Sao Paulo, Brazil) · 2017Pooled it
- Development of a PRISMA extension for systematic reviews of health economic evaluations (PRISMA-EconEval): a project protocol.Systematic reviews · 2025Article
- Costs and cost-effectiveness of integrated horizontal community health worker programmes in low- and middle-income countries (2015-2024): a scoping literature review.BMJ global health · 2025Article
- Are Nutritional Interventions Worthwhile in Cancer Patients? A Systematic Review on Economic Evaluation.ClinicoEconomics and outcomes research : CEOR · 2025Review
- Use of Cost-Effectiveness Thresholds in Healthcare Public Policy: Progress and Challenges.Applied health economics and health policy · 2024Review
- Cost-effectiveness of Procalcitonin (PCT) guidance for antibiotics management of adult sepsis patients in the Egyptian context.BMC health services research · 2024Article
- On spillovers in economic evaluations: definition, mapping review and research agenda.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2024Review
- The Conceptualization and Measurement of Research Impact in Primary Health Care: Protocol for a Rapid Scoping Review.JMIR research protocols · 2024Article
- National hospital costing systems matter for universal healthcare: the India PM-JAY experience.BMJ global health · 2023Article
- Maintenance versus replacement of medical equipment: a cost-minimization analysis among district hospitals in Nepal.BMC health services research · 2022Article
- Identifying priorities for research on financial risk protection to achieve universal health coverage: a scoping overview of reviews.BMJ open · 2022Article
- CHSI costing study-Challenges and solutions for cost data collection in private hospitals in India.PloS one · 2022Review
- National Healthcare Economic Evaluation Guidelines: A Cross-Country Comparison.PharmacoEconomics - open · 2021Review
- A Systematic Review of Sources of Outcomes and Cost Data Utilized in Economic Evaluation Research Conducted in the Gulf Cooperation Council.Risk management and healthcare policy · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
There are marked differences in methods used for undertaking economic evaluations across low-income, middle-income, and high-income countries. We outline the most apparent dissimilarities and reflect on their underlying reasons. We randomly sampled 50 studies from each of three country income groups from a comprehensive database of 2844 economic evaluations published between January 2012 and May 2014. Data were extracted on ten methodological areas: (i) availability of guidelines; (ii) research questions; (iii) perspective; (iv) cost data collection methods; (v) cost data analysis; (vi) outcome measures; (vii) modelling techniques; (viii) cost-effectiveness thresholds; (ix) uncertainty analysis; and (x) applicability. Comparisons were made across income groups and odds ratios calculated. Contextual heterogeneity rightly drives some of the differences identified. Other differences appear less warranted and may be attributed to variation in government health sector capacity, in health economics research capacity and in expectations of funders, journals and peer reviewers. By highlighting these differences, we seek to start a debate about the underlying reasons why they have occurred and to what extent the differences are conducive for methodological advancements. We suggest a number of specific areas in which researchers working in countries of differing environments could learn from one another.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.