Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41491046›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of technology assessment in health care2026

Revised methods guide for economic evaluation studies of health technologies in Portugal.

Marta O Soares, Julian Perelman, Ceu Mateus, Ana Duarte, Rita Faria, Lara N Ferreira, Pedro Saramago, Paula Veiga Benesch, Claudia Furtado, Maria do Céu Teixeira and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of technology assessment in health care, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

12 authors.

Marta O SoaresCentre for Health Economics, https://ror.org/04m01e293University of York, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1579-8513
Julian PerelmanEscola Nacional de Saude Publica, https://ror.org/02xankh89Universidade Nova de Lisboa, Portugal.
Ceu MateusDepartment of Health Research, https://ror.org/04f2nsd36Lancaster University, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6219-219X
Ana DuarteCentre for Health Economics, https://ror.org/04m01e293University of York, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0528-4773
Rita FariaCentre for Health Economics, https://ror.org/04m01e293University of York, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3410-1435
Lara N FerreiraUniv Algarve ESGHT, Portugal School of Management, Hospitality and Tourism. https://ror.org/014g34x36University of Algarve, Portugal.
Pedro SaramagoCentre for Health Economics, https://ror.org/04m01e293University of York, UK.
Paula Veiga BeneschSchool of Economics and Management, https://ror.org/037wpkx04University of Minho, Portugal.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5110-7906
Claudia FurtadoPricing and Reimbursement Division, https://ror.org/05pczjj75Portuguese National Authority for Medicines and Health Products (INFARMED), Portugal.
Maria do Céu TeixeiraPricing and Reimbursement Division, https://ror.org/05pczjj75Portuguese National Authority for Medicines and Health Products (INFARMED), Portugal.
Sónia CaldeiraPricing and Reimbursement Division, https://ror.org/05pczjj75Portuguese National Authority for Medicines and Health Products (INFARMED), Portugal.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5418-195X
Mark SculpherCentre for Health Economics, https://ror.org/04m01e293University of York, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionEconomic evaluation supports public funding decisions about the use of health technologies within the Portuguese National Health System (NHS). The methods guide for economic evaluation in Portugal serves both companies preparing economic evaluation submissions and the independent commission appraising the evidence submitted.

methodsThis article presents the revised methods guide for economic evaluation in Portugal. The revisions reflect advances in economic evaluation, updates to regulatory policies, and responses to the evolving economic context. The paper highlights the most significant changes to the guidance, comparing the new Portuguese guidelines to those from the United Kingdom and Canada. The discussion is framed around key comments received during public consultation.

resultsThe updated guidelines recommend cost-effectiveness analyses based on quality-adjusted life years and advocate for long-term modelling, a 4 percent discount rate, and a focus on NHS costs. New features include guidance on the identification and management of uncertainty within a dynamic appraisal process with regular contract negotiations (which can trigger reappraisals). The guide also covers how cost-effectiveness models, typically centrally developed, should be adapted to the Portuguese context. It highlights the key role of structured expert elicitation to address uncertainties in evidence, including those related to model adaptation.

conclusionsThe revision was developed through stakeholder consultations and aligns with international best practices, offering more explicit and transparent methods to support health resource allocation decisions.

Indexed as

Guidelines as TopicTechnology Assessment, BiomedicalCost-Benefit AnalysisHumansModels, EconomicPortugalQuality-Adjusted Life YearsState Medicinedecision makingeconomic evaluationhealth economicshealth technology assessmentINFARMEDmethods guidePortugal

Identifiers

PMID41491046
PMCPMC12902164

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.