Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26961722›Full record

ReviewInternational journal of technology assessment in health care2015

REVIEWING TRANSFERABILITY IN ECONOMIC EVALUATIONS ORIGINATING FROM EASTERN EUROPE.

Olena Mandrik, Saskia Knies, Zoltan Kalo, Johan L Severens

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in International journal of technology assessment in health care, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Evaluating the Cost-Effectiveness of Air Pollution Mitigation Strategies: A Systematic Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2025
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Cost-of-illness studies in nine Central and Eastern European countries.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2019
    Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Balanced assessment systems revisited.Journal of market access & health policy · 2017
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Olena MandrikiBMG-Institute of Health Policy & Management;Erasmus University RotterdamOlena.dem@gmail.com.
Saskia KniesiBMG-Institute of Health Policy & Management,Erasmus University Rotterdam;National Health Care Institute.
Zoltan KaloDepartment of Health Policy and Health Economics,Eötvös Loránd University;Syreon Research Institute.
Johan L SeverensiBMG-Institute of Health Policy & Management;iMTA-Institute of Medical Technology Assessment;Erasmus University Rotterdam.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThe aim of this study is to analyze the quality and transferability issues reported in published peer-reviewed English-language economic evaluations based in healthcare settings of the Central and Eastern European (CEE) and former Soviet countries.

methodsA systematic search of economic evaluations of healthcare interventions was performed for Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Bulgaria, Estonia, Georgia, Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan, Lithuania, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Republic of Moldova, Romania, the Russian Federation, Serbia, Slovenia, and Ukraine. The included studies were assessed according to their characteristics, quality (using Drummond's checklist), use of local data, and the transferability of inputs and results, if addressed.

resultsMost of the thirty-four economic evaluations identified were conducted from a healthcare or payer perspective (74 percent), with 47 percent of studies focusing on infectious diseases. The least frequently and transparently addressed parameters were the items' stated perspectives, relevant costs included, accurately measured costs in appropriate units, outcomes and costs credibly valued, and uncertainties addressed. Local data were often used to assess unit costs, baseline risk, and resource usage, while jurisdiction-specific utilities were included in only one study. Only 32 percent of relevant studies discussed the limitations of using foreign data, and 36 percent of studies discussed the transferability of their own study results to other jurisdictions.

conclusionsTransferability of the results is not sufficiently discussed in published economic evaluations. To simplify the transferability of studies to other jurisdictions, the following should be comprehensively addressed: uncertainty, impact of influential parameters, and data transferability. The transparency of reporting should be improved.

Indexed as

Cost-Benefit AnalysisDelivery of Health CareEurope, EasternHumansTechnology Assessment, BiomedicalCost effectivenessDeveloping countriesReview

Identifiers

PMID26961722
PMCPMC4824959

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.