Cited by 173Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of LifeMeta-analysis and systematic reviewsEvaluation and Performance Assessment

Systematic reviews of economic evaluations: utility or futility?

Anderson, Rob·2010·Health Economics

Abstract

Systematic reviews of studies of effectiveness are the centrepiece of evidence‐based medicine and policy making. Increasingly, systematic reviews of economic evaluations are also an expected input into much evidence‐based policy making, with some health economists even calling for ‘an economics approach to systematic review’. This paper questions the value of conducting systematic reviews of economic evaluations to inform decision making in health care. It argues that the value of systematic reviews of economic evaluations is usually undermined by three things. Firstly, compared with effectiveness studies, there is a much wider range of factors that limit the generalisability of cost–effectiveness results, over time and between health systems and service settings, including the context‐dependency of resource use and opportunity costs, and different decision contexts and budget constraints. Secondly, because economic evaluations are more explicitly intended to be decision‐informing, the requirements for generalisability take primacy, and considerations of internal validity become more secondary. Thirdly, since one of the two main forms of economic evaluation – decision analytic modelling – is itself a well‐developed method of evidence synthesis, in most cases the need for a comprehensive systematic review of previous economic evaluations of a particular health technology or policy choice is unwarranted. I conclude that apparent ‘meta‐analytic expectations’ for clear and widely applicable cost–effectiveness conclusions from systematic reviews of economic evaluations are optimistic and generally futile. For more useful insights and knowledge from previous economic studies in evidence‐based policy making, a more limited range of reasons for conducting systematic reviews of health economic studies is proposed. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/hec.1486

Cites

48 of 48 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • In health economics, systematic literature reviews on the relative cost-effectiveness of different interventions are increasingly used in health care system decision-making.

    “In the health economics field, SLRs on the relative cost-effectiveness of different interventions are increasingly used in health care system decision-making (Anderson, 2010; Jacobsen et al., 2020; Luhnen et al., 2018; Mandrik et al., 2021).”
  • A cost-effectiveness analysis was chosen for this case study as SLRs of this kind involve unique challenges, including heterogeneity in study design, interventions, populations, and settings.

    “A cost-effectiveness analysis was chosen for this case study as SLRs of this kind involve unique challenges, including heterogeneity in study design, interventions, populations, and settings (Anderson, 2010; Husereau et al., 2022; Jacobsen et al., 2020; Mandrik et al., 2021).”
  • Economic evaluations are one of many important factors in decision-making about EBP use.

    “Research from varied global contexts consistently shows that economic evaluations are one of many important factors in decision-making about EBP use [16–18].”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 50 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Anderson, R.
Affiliations
University of Exeter (GB)
Corresponding author
Anderson, Rob
Venue
Health Economics
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2010-02-08
Volume
19
Issue
3
Pages
350-364
ISSN
  • 1057-9230 (ISSN-L)
  • 1099-1050
OpenAlex
W2090385390
Cited by
173
References
50
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 18 · 2019: 16 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 12 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 10 · 2013: 13 · 2012: 12
FWCI
2.64
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Health Economics (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Evaluation and Performance Assessment
Keywords
cost-effectiveness, opportunity cost, internal validity, decision-analytic modeling, evidence synthesis, healthcare decision-making, evidence-based policy making, health technology appraisal
MeSH terms
Cost-Benefit Analysis, Costs and Cost Analysis, Evaluation Studies as Topic, Humans, Review Literature as Topic, Evidence-Based Medicine

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review