Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41992367›Full record

SynthesisArchives of public health = Archives belges de sante publique2026

Methodological heterogeneity and equity challenges of distributional cost-effectiveness analysis in healthcare: a systematic review from 2017 to 2025.

Xinyue Yuan, Jiaqi Shi, Qingqiu Wang, Ming Hu

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Archives of public health = Archives belges de sante publique, 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

4 authors.

Xinyue Yuan *West China School of Pharmacy, Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan, 610041, China.
Jiaqi Shi *West China School of Pharmacy, Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan, 610041, China.
Qingqiu WangWest China School of Pharmacy, Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan, 610041, China.
Ming HuWest China School of Pharmacy, Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan, 610041, China. huming@scu.edu.cn.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHealth equity has become a key focus of global health policy. Distributional cost-effectiveness analysis (DCEA) is one of the most commonly used methods for incorporating health equity into health economics evaluations. However, systematic reviews specifically on DCEA in healthcare remain scarce, and its research methods, findings, and quality have not been clearly summarized.

methodsA systematic review was conducted in accordance with PRISMA 2020 guidelines, drawing from PubMed (MEDLINE), Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, CNKI, Wanfang, and VIP from inception to 30th August 2025. We included empirical studies in healthcare field that explored the costs and health outcomes of at least two healthcare interventions through DCEA. A total of 923 articles were identified, of which 28 studies met the eligibility criteria. The Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES) and Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) 2022 were both used to assess the quality of the literature. An inductive content analysis was employed to extract detailed research characteristics, identify methodological and outcome differences in DCEA.

resultsAll studies were of high quality based on QHES. Relevant research was highly concentrated in developed regions (75.00%), primarily North America and Europe. Infectious diseases (28.57%) and cancers (21.43%) were the most common disease domains. Markov models (25.00%) and Micro-simulation models (21.43%) were the most widely used. Subgroup division mainly relied on societal and structural variables (46.43%) and race and ethnicity (32.14%) as the core basis for equity analysis. The Atkinson index was the most common equity indexes. 85.71% reported win-win interventions, while only one yielded a lose‑lose outcome; a further six studies identified trade‑offs between equity and efficiency.

conclusionWe elaborated on three key methodological distinctions in DCEA: the basis for subgroup classification, modeling methodology and equity indexes. We identified the following challenges in conducting DCEA: a lack of certified equity subgroup classification criteria and measurement frameworks; difficulties in obtaining evidence for key equity parameters; and policymakers’ unfamiliarity with the method and insufficient emphasis on prioritizing equity considerations.

trial registrationThe protocol and search strategy were registered and published in the PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (CRD420251169448).

Indexed as

Distributional cost-effectiveness analysisEquity weightingHealthcare policyHealth equity

Identifiers

PMID41992367
PMCPMC13214177

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.