ReviewPharmaceutical medicine2026
Global Mapping of National Health Economic Evaluation Guidelines: Evidence from 40 Countries.
Review in Pharmaceutical medicine, 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
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Health economic evaluation (HEE) guidelines play an important role in health technology assessment (HTA) by supporting the consistent and transparent use of economic evidence in decision making. As countries continue updating their guidelines, substantial methodological variation persists. This review aimed to provide an updated global comparison of national HEE guidelines. National HEE guidelines were identified from the ISPOR and GEAR repositories and supplemented by hand-searching and searches of governmental and institutional sources. Two reviewers independently extracted data across 23 methodological domains, including analytical perspective, comparators, cost categories, outcome measures, modeling, discounting, evidence synthesis, and uncertainty analysis. Forty national guidelines were identified (25 high-income countries, 9 upper-middle-income countries, and 6 lower-middle-income countries). Most guidelines had been updated between 2015 and 2025. Forty-eight percent were recommendatory, 43% mandatory, and 10% voluntary. Cost-utility analysis was preferred in 48% of guidelines, and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were recommended in 53%. Systematic review and the use of real-world evidence was commonly emphasized. Discount rates ranged from 1.5 to 5%, largely reflecting national economic conditions. Nearly all guidelines required clear reporting of assumptions, parameter values, and sensitivity analyses. Variation remained in preferred perspectives, comparator selection, inclusion of indirect costs, and utility measurement methods. This review provides an updated global overview of national HEE guidelines, highlighting areas of convergence in analytical methods, evidence requirements, and approaches to uncertainty. Persistent differences across countries and income settings underscore the need for context-specific but methodologically robust guidance to support HTA and healthcare decision making.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42611176What 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.