ArticleBMJ open2025
Application of distributional cost-effectiveness analysis methodology in real-world studies: a scoping review protocol.
Article in BMJ open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionHealthcare systems face the challenge of managing limited resources while addressing the growing demand for care and the need for equitable access. Traditional cost-effectiveness analyses focus on maximising health benefits but often fail to account for how these benefits are distributed across various populations, potentially increasing health inequities. As a result, there is increasing interest in distributional cost-effectiveness analysis (DCEA), which incorporates equity considerations by explicitly assessing how health outcomes and costs are shared among diverse populations. This scoping review explores the practical application of DCEA methodology in evaluating programs and interventions. We seek to learn more about the barriers to DCEA's application, highlighting its practical challenges, limited use globally and the steps necessary to integrate equity more effectively into implementing and adopting programs and interventions into healthcare policy and resource allocation. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: To evaluate the use of DCEA in the literature, a scoping review will follow Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses-Scoping Review Extension guidelines. Systematic searches will be performed across scientific databases (MEDLINE, SCOPUS, BASE, APA Psych and JSTOR), grey literature sources (Google Custom Search Engine), and handsearching to identify eligible articles published from January 2015 to March 2025. No limits will be placed on language. Reviewers will independently chart data from eligible studies using standardised data abstraction. The collected information will be synthesised both quantitatively and narratively. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Formal ethical approval is not necessary as this study will not collect primary data. The findings will be shared with professional networks, published in conference proceedings and submitted for peer-reviewed publication.
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.