Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37751935›Full record

ArticleBMJ global health2023

Validating the rigour of adaptive methods of economic evaluation.

Akashdeep Singh Chauhan, Deepshikha Sharma, Abha Mehndiratta, Nidhi Gupta, Basant Garg, Amneet P Kumar, Shankar Prinja

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ global health, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
4.0field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Next-generation methods in health technology assessment (HTA): need, rigor, and implementability.International journal of technology assessment in health care · 2026
    Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. 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

7 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.

Akashdeep Singh ChauhanDepartment of Community Medicine and School of Public Health, Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, India.
Deepshikha SharmaDepartment of Community Medicine and School of Public Health, Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, India.
Abha MehndirattaCenter for Global Development, Washington, Columbia, USA.
Nidhi GuptaDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Government Medical College and Hospital, Chandigarh, India.
Basant GargNational Health Authority, Ayushman Bharat PM-JAY, Government of India, New Delhi, India.
Amneet P KumarDepartment of Women and Child Development, Government of Haryana, Panchkula, Haryana, India.
Shankar PrinjaDepartment of Community Medicine and School of Public Health, Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, India shankarprinja@gmail.com.ORCID 0000-0001-7719-6986
Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research · INCenter for Global Development · USGovernment Medical College and Hospital · INGovernment of Haryana · INGovernment of India · IN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThere has been a lot of debate on how to 'generalise' or 'translate' findings of economic evaluation (EE) or health technology assessment (HTA) to other country contexts. Researchers have used various adaptive HTA (aHTA) methods like model-adaptation, price-benchmarking, scorecard-approach, etc., for transferring evidence from one country to other. This study was undertaken to assess the degree of accuracy in results generated from aHTA approaches specifically for EE.

methodsBy applying selected aHTA approaches, we adapted findings of globally published EE to Indian context. The first-step required identifying two interventions for which Indian EE (referred to as the 'Indian reference study') has been conducted. The next-step involved identification of globally published EE. The third-step required undertaking quality and transferability check. In the fourth step, outcomes of EE meeting transferability standards, were adapted using selected aHTA approaches. Lastly, adapted results were compared with findings of the Indian reference study.

resultsThe adapted cost estimates varied considerably, while adapted quality-adjusted life-years did not differ much, when matched with the Indian reference study. For intervention I (trastuzumab), adapted absolute costs were 11 and 6 times higher than the costs reported in the Indian reference study for control and intervention arms, respectively. Likewise, adapted incremental cost and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) were around 3.5-8 times higher than the values reported in the Indian reference study. For intervention II (intensity-modulated radiation therapy), adapted absolute cost was 35% and 12% lower for the comparator and intervention arms, respectively, than the values reported in the Indian reference study. The mean incremental cost and ICER were 2.5 times and 1.5 times higher, respectively, than the Indian reference study values.

conclusionWe conclude that findings from aHTA methods should be interpreted with caution. There is a need to develop more robust aHTA approaches for cost adjustment. aHTA may be used for 'topic prioritisation' within the overall HTA process, whereby interventions which are highly cost-ineffective, can be directly ruled out, thus saving time and resources for conducting full HTA for interventions that are not well studied or where evidence is inconclusive.

Indexed as

BenchmarkingCost-Benefit AnalysisHumansQuality-Adjusted Life Yearscancerhealth economicshealth policy

Identifiers

PMID37751935
PMCPMC10533726
OpenAlexW4387063681

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.