Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36575333›Full record

SynthesisApplied health economics and health policy2023

Headroom Analysis for Early Economic Evaluation: A Systematic Review.

Esther A Boudewijns, Thomas M Otten, Mariam Gobianidze, Bram L Ramaekers, Onno C P van Schayck, Manuela A Joore

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Applied health economics and health policy, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Bilateral vestibulopathy - insight in impact on quality of life and economic burden.European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

6 authors.

Esther A BoudewijnsDepartment of Family Medicine, Care and Public Health Research Institute (CAPHRI), Maastricht University, P.O. Box 616, 6200 MD, Maastricht, The Netherlands. esther.boudewijns@maastrichtuniversity.nl.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9087-1712
Thomas M OttenDepartment of Clinical Epidemiology and Medical Technology Assessment (KEMTA), Maastricht University Medical Centre MUMC+/Care and Public Health Research Institute (CAPHRI), Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Mariam GobianidzeDepartment of Family Medicine, Care and Public Health Research Institute (CAPHRI), Maastricht University, P.O. Box 616, 6200 MD, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Bram L RamaekersDepartment of Clinical Epidemiology and Medical Technology Assessment (KEMTA), Maastricht University Medical Centre MUMC+/Care and Public Health Research Institute (CAPHRI), Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Onno C P van SchayckDepartment of Family Medicine, Care and Public Health Research Institute (CAPHRI), Maastricht University, P.O. Box 616, 6200 MD, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Manuela A JooreDepartment of Clinical Epidemiology and Medical Technology Assessment (KEMTA), Maastricht University Medical Centre MUMC+/Care and Public Health Research Institute (CAPHRI), Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands.

Funding

ZonMw 104006001
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThe headroom analysis is an early economic evaluation that quantifies the highest price at which an intervention may still be cost effective. Currently, there is no comprehensive review on how it is applied. This study investigated the application of the headroom analysis, specifically (1) how the headroom analysis is framed (2) the analytical approach and sources of evidence used, and (3) how expert judgement is used and reported.

methodsA systematic search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, EconLit, and Google Scholar on 28 April 2022. Studies were eligible if they reported an application of the headroom analysis. Data were presented in tabular form and summarised descriptively.

resultsWe identified 42 relevant papers. The headroom analysis was applied to medicines (29%), diagnostic or screening tests (29%), procedures, programmes and systems (21%), medical devices (19%), and a combined test and device (2%). All studies used model-based analyses, with 40% using simple models and 60% using more comprehensive models. Thirty-three percent of the studies assumed perfect effectiveness of the health technology, while 67% adopted realistic assumptions. Ten percent of the studies calculated an effectiveness-seeking headroom instead of a cost-seeking headroom. Expert judgement was used in 71% of the studies; 23 studies (55%) used expert opinion, 6 studies (14%) used expert elicitation, and 1 study (2%) used both.

conclusionsBecause the application of the headroom analysis varies considerably, we recommend its appropriate use and clear reporting of analytical approaches, level of evidence available, and the use of expert judgement.

Indexed as

Cost-Effectiveness AnalysisCost-Benefit AnalysisHumans

Identifiers

PMID36575333

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.