Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42814381›Full record

ReviewPharmacoEconomics2026

Meta-Analysis of Incremental Net Benefit from Trial-Based Health Economic Evaluations in R: A Tutorial.

Romain Jonathan Collet, Johanna Maria van Dongen, Oraluck Pattanaprateep, Suparee Wisawapipat Boonmanunt, Ardine de Wit, Judith Ekkina Bosmans, Veerle Coupé, Raymond Ostelo, Ammarin Thakkinstian

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review 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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Romain Jonathan ColletDepartment of Rehabilitation Medicine, Amsterdam UMC, Location Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. r.j.collet@vu.nl.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4621-4077
Johanna Maria van DongenMusculoskeletal Health, Amsterdam Movement Sciences, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Oraluck PattanaprateepDepartment of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Faculty of Medicine Ramathibodi Hospital, Mahidol University, Salaya Township Municipality, Sala, Nakhon Pathom Province, Thailand.
Suparee Wisawapipat BoonmanuntDepartment of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Faculty of Medicine Ramathibodi Hospital, Mahidol University, Salaya Township Municipality, Sala, Nakhon Pathom Province, Thailand.
Ardine de WitDepartment of Health Sciences, Faculty of Science, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Judith Ekkina BosmansDepartment of Health Sciences, Faculty of Science, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Veerle CoupéDepartment of Epidemiology and Data Science, Amsterdam UMC, Location Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Raymond OsteloDepartment of Epidemiology and Data Science, Amsterdam UMC, Location Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Ammarin ThakkinstianDepartment of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Faculty of Medicine Ramathibodi Hospital, Mahidol University, Salaya Township Municipality, Sala, Nakhon Pathom Province, Thailand.

Funding

National Research Council of Thailand N42A690510ZonMw 10270022110004
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Systematic reviews of economic evaluations are increasingly used to inform healthcare decision making, yet approaches for a cost-effectiveness meta-analysis vary substantially, and clear methodological guidance remains limited. Differences in country income level, currency, cost reference year, analytic perspective, time horizon, and outcome measures, as well as incomplete reporting of uncertainty, complicate the pooling and interpretation of pooled cost-effectiveness estimates. This tutorial provides a structured reproducible workflow for conducting a cost-effectiveness meta-analysis of trial-based economic evaluations using the incremental net benefit framework. Step-by-step guidance is provided for harmonising costs across countries and time (using purchasing power parity and inflation adjustments, respectively), estimating or imputing missing variances of incremental costs and effects, and pooling incremental net benefits across a range of willingness-to-pay thresholds. Fully annotated R scripts and practical examples are provided to demonstrate the meta-analysis of incremental costs, effects, and net benefits, and the generation of pooled cost-effectiveness acceptability curves to depict decision uncertainty. Stratified and sensitivity analyses are described to explore contextual heterogeneity and assess robustness, respectively. By providing transparent methods and reproducible tools, this tutorial supports a more consistent and interpretable cost-effectiveness meta-analysis, while highlighting important methodological challenges.

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.