ReviewCost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E2026
Exploring trends of cost-effectiveness thresholds in South Korea: systematic review of pharmacoeconomic evaluations since introduction of the positive list system.
Review in Cost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E, 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
backgroundPharmacoeconomic evaluations are critical for healthcare decision-making, especially as South Korea has emphasized cost-effectiveness since the 2006 positive list system. However, no official cost-effectiveness threshold (CET) has been established. This study aimed to systematically review cost-utility analyses (CUAs) conducted in South Korea since 2007 and to describe how CET values have been reported and applied in published pharmacoeconomic studies.
methodsWe conducted this systematic review following the PRISMA guidelines. We searched five databases, including PubMed and KoreaMed, for CUAs published after 2007. We included CUAs of medications conducted in South Korea that reported CET. Data on baseline year, outcome measures, CET values, drug type (anticancer drugs, vaccines, and other treatments), and funding sources were extracted. We assessed the association between CETs and categorical variables using the chi-square tests or Fisher's exact tests, as appropriate.
resultsA total of 8,510 studies were initially identified, of which 53 met the inclusion criteria after screening. Median CETs showed an increasing trend over time. GDP per capita-based references were more frequently used than WTP-based approaches (60.4% vs. 37.7%). Anticancer drugs consistently demonstrated higher CET values than other treatment categories, and drug type was significantly associated with CET levels (p < 0.05). In contrast, other study characteristics, including funding source, were not significantly associated in categorical analyses.
conclusionThis study provides an overview of CET trends in South Korea, highlighting differences by drug type. As the number of high-cost drugs and healthcare demands increase, CETs are expected to play a key role in balancing financial sustainability and patient access. These findings offer insights into how CET values have been applied in the literature and may inform ongoing discussions on the use of CETs in health economic evaluations.
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.