ArticleInternational journal of technology assessment in health care2026
How users perceive meta-analysis of economic evaluations.
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.
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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesMeta-analysis of economic evaluations (MAEEs), using the incremental net benefit approach, enables quantitative synthesis of cost-effectiveness evidence and may support policy decisions. However, little is known about users' perceptions or utility of MAEEs. This study examined end users' perceptions and applicability of MAEE findings in real-world decision-making.
methodsA cross-sectional online survey was conducted among individuals attending an ISPOR Real-World Evidence Summit 2025 breakout session on MAEEs. The survey collected data on respondent characteristics, prior awareness of and experience with MAEEs, perceived usefulness, potential applications, and the likelihood of future use. Responses were summarized using descriptive statistics, and associations between participant characteristics and perceptions were analyzed using chi-square tests and odds ratios (95 percent confidence interval).
resultsSeventy-six participants completed the survey. Most respondents were from the WHO South-East Asia Region (72 percent) and represented Industry/Pharma/MedTech (36 percent) or Academia/Research (34 percent). Perceptions were positive: 78 percent considered MAEEs "definitely" or "possibly" beneficial, and 55 percent indicated they would likely or very likely use MAEEs in policymaking. MAEEs were perceived as useful for highlighting variation across studies, reducing single-study bias, and improving precision when multiple EEs exist on the same topic within a country. Potential users included national health authorities, policy makers, hospitals/insurers, and countries with limited EE capacity. No significant associations were observed between respondent characteristics and perceived benefits or likelihood of use (
conclusionsMAEEs are well-received by participants. Larger surveys and qualitative studies are needed to explore context-specific applicability, refine methodology, and enhance their utility across diverse settings.
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.