ArticleBMJ open2026
Validation in trial-based economic evaluations: a scoping review protocol.
Article in BMJ open, 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionEconomic evaluations conducted alongside clinical trials play a key role in informing healthcare decision-making. While structured validation frameworks are well established for model-based economic evaluations, there is no agreed approach to validating trial-based economic evaluations. Validation activities in this context are variably defined, inconsistently reported and often embedded implicitly within analytical practice. As part of a wider programme of work to develop a validation tool for trial-based economic evaluation, this scoping review aims to systematically map how validation is conceptualised, described and undertaken in the literature. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This protocol describes a planned scoping review. The completed review will be conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews guidelines. We will search MEDLINE, Embase and the International Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment (INAHTA) database. Grey literature will be identified through targeted searches of health technology assessment and guideline-producing organisation websites, with ProQuest searched for doctoral dissertations only and reference lists of included sources screened. We will include trial-based economic evaluations, methodological and conceptual papers, guidance documents and empirical studies that describe or assess validation activities relevant to trial-based economic evaluation. Title and abstract screening and full-text review will be undertaken independently by two reviewers. Data extraction will be conducted by one reviewer, with all extracted records independently verified by a second reviewer. Data will be extracted using a structured form capturing study characteristics and validation activities. Findings will be synthesised descriptively using tables and narrative summaries to map validation concepts and practices. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval is not required as this review will use published literature only. Findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publication, conference presentations and engagement with stakeholders, and will inform subsequent consensus-based work to develop a validation tool for trial-based economic evaluation.
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.