SynthesisPharmacoEconomics2026
Applications of Structural Expert Elicitations for Economic Evaluations: A Systematic Review Update.
Synthesis in PharmacoEconomics, 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundStructured expert elicitation (SEE) has become increasingly important in health technology assessment and economic evaluations. Complementing previous work, we aimed to synthesize recent developments in published SEE applications within health economics over the past 8 years.
methodsA systematic literature search was conducted in Medline and Embase databases from April 2017 to February 2026, supplemented with snowball sampling, to identify applications of SEE as part of economic evaluations. Data extraction and synthesis focused on expert selection, elicitation methods, and analytical techniques to identify commonalities and gaps.
resultsIn total, 28 studies met the inclusion criteria. SEE applications covered diverse health interventions, from rare diseases treatments to diagnostic accuracy assessments. The number of experts recruited through purposive sampling varied from 1 to 18 clinicians per study. SEE processes remain bespoke and diverse, spanning from paper-based to software-assisted remote techniques. The studies used mainly variable and fixed interval methods (29% versus 67%) for encoding. Aggregation methods were mainly mathematical, with some studies using consensus approaches. Most studies (75%) directly incorporated pooled expert distributions into decision models.
conclusionsWhile SEE methods vary considerably across applications, suggesting that optimal approaches have yet to emerge, there is growing recognition of their potential for informing healthcare decision-making where empirical data are scarce, particularly in rare diseases and early-stage technology assessment. Future research should prioritize standardizing best practices, validating expert predictions against subsequently available empirical data, and developing enhanced bias mitigation strategies to improve the credibility of expert-informed 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.