ReviewPharmacoEconomics2020
Adherence to Discounting Guidelines: Evidence from Over 2000 Published Cost-Effectiveness Analyses.
Review in PharmacoEconomics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Domain-specific discounting of health and money: implications for health technology assessment.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2026Article
- Challenges in synthesising cost-effectiveness estimates.Systematic reviews · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Previous studies have shown that not all cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) adhere to recommended guidelines on intertemporal discounting. This analysis investigates adherence in a sample of over 2000 CEAs from seven countries. Guideline discount rates were retrieved for Australia, Belgium, Canada, Ireland, The Netherlands, New Zealand and the UK. Data on the rates applied in published CEAs were retrieved from the Tufts CEA Registry from the sample countries within the periods covered by the discounting guidelines. The relationship between adherence and candidate explanatory factors were assessed using logistic regression. The analysis appraised 2270 CEAs. The overall rate of adherence to discounting recommendations was 79%. Country-specific adherence ranged from 28% in New Zealand to 87% in Belgium and the UK. Adherence in Australia and Canada was 73% and 66%, respectively. Adherence is statistically significantly higher in more recent studies, countries currently applying differential discounting and manufacturer-sponsored studies. Relative to the reference case of Australia, adherence is statistically significantly higher in the UK and lower in Canada and New Zealand. There is notable variation in the rates of adherence to discounting recommendations between countries and over time. Incomplete adherence raises concerns regarding the comparability of evidence between studies. In turn, this raises concerns regarding equity of access to scarce healthcare resources. Journal editors should ensure that adherence to discounting recommendations is assessed as part of the peer review process.
Indexed as
Identifiers
32342439What 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.