Assessing the quality of pharmacoeconomic studies in India: a systematic review

Assessment of Extent and Quality of Pharmacoeconomic Studies in India Using Quality of Health Economic Studies Score: A Targeted Literature Review

OBJECTIVES

We assessed the quality of pharmacoeconomic studies conducted in India to report key areas of focus on the findings from the reviewed studies.

METHODS

A targeted literature review was conducted using well-defined search strategy in PubMed to identify economic studies conducted in India from May 2017 to April 2022. Only economic evaluation studies were included, whereas trial-based cost analyses were excluded. The quality of included studies was assessed using the Quality of Health Economic Studies tool, which comprised 16 evaluation criteria related to objectives, source, funding, perspective, subgroup analysis, scales, and economic modeling related parameters. Based on scores (100 points), studies were rated as good (≥75), fair (50-74), and poor (≤49) quality.

RESULTS

Search strategy provided 888 studies; 95 of these were economic studies, and 74 were included in the analysis. These 74 studies included budget impact analysis (n = 4), burden of illness (n = 8), cost-benefit analysis (n = 5), cost-consequences analysis (n = 1), cost-effectiveness analysis (n = 55), and cost-utility analysis (n = 1). The average quality score of studies was 64.08. Of the studies, 15 studies were rated as "good," 51 "fair," and 8 "poor." It was observed that primary outcome measures, stating negative outcomes, reporting bias, and implementing statistical and sensitivity analysis significantly affected the quality score.

CONCLUSIONS

Most of the health economic studies conducted in India are of fair quality, and there is a need for standardization of guidelines and increase in number of Indian peer-reviewed health economics journals. A collaborative effort from pharma companies, policy makers, education experts, curriculum planners, and medical faculty is needed to promote quality economic studies.

A retrospective cross-sectional descriptive study to critically appraise the quality of reporting of health economic evaluations conducted in the Indian setting

Background:

The reporting quality of economic research could benefit from enhanced quality assurance procedures. At present, there are small numbers of health economic researches being conducted with Indian context or setting. There is not much clarity about the reporting quality of health economic researches being conducted with Indian context or setting.

Objective:

The primary objective is to of this study was to appraise the quality of reporting of health economic evaluations conducted in the Indian setting and published between January 2014 and December 2018.

Materials and Methods:

This was a retrospective, cross-sectional, descriptive analysis. The MEDLINE in PubMed, Google Scholar, and Science Direct were systematically searched to search for economic evaluations. The consolidated health economic evaluation reporting standards statement checklist was utilized to assess the quality of reporting of the included studies. For grading the quality of the included health economic assessments, the Quality of Health Evaluation Studies (QHES) instrument was used.

Results:

Thirty studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria and were included in the study. The mean QHES score was 80.26 (standard deviation = 8.06). Twenty-five (83.33%, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.66–0.92) of the article mentioned perspective of the study. Twenty-nine (96.66%, 95% CI: 0.83–0.99) of the article described the effects of uncertainty for all input parameters. Twenty (66.66%, 95% CI: 0.48–0.80) of the article reported all funding sources.

Conclusions:

Overall, the quality of reporting of the included health economic studies was good, which reemphasizes their usefulness in supporting the decision-making procedure about better medicine. The finding of this study will be a small step toward ensuring robust and high-quality health economics data in India.

The state of cost-utility analysis in India: A systematic review

Aims:

Cost-utility studies are crucial tools that help policy-makers promote appropriate resource allocation. The objective of this study was to evaluate the extent and quality of cost-utility analysis (CUA) in India through a systematic literature review.

Methods:

Comprehensive database search was conducted to identify the relevant literature published from November 2009 to November 2019. Gray literature and hand searches were also performed. Two researchers independently reviewed and assessed study quality using Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards checklist.

Results:

Thirty-five studies were included in the final review. Thirteen studies used Markov model, five used decision tree model, four used a combination of decision tree and Markov model and one each used microsimulation and dynamic compartmental model. The primary therapeutic areas targeted in CUA were infectious diseases (n = 12), ophthalmology (n = 5), and endocrine disorders (n = 4). Five studies were carried out in Tamil Nadu, four in Goa, three in Punjab, two each in Delhi, Maharashtra, and Uttar Pradesh, and one each in West Bengal and Karnataka. Twenty-three, eight, and four studies were found to be of excellent, very good, and good quality, respectively. The average quality score of the studies was 19.21 out of 24.

Conclusions:

This systematic literature review identified the published CUA studies in India. The overall quality of the included studies was good; however, features such as subgroup analyses and explicit study perspective were missing in several evaluations.

Assessing the capacity of Ghana to introduce health technology assessment: a systematic review of economic evaluations conducted in Ghana

OBJECTIVES

Ghana is in the process of formally introducing health technology assessment (HTA) for health decision making. Similar to other low- and middle-income countries, evidence suggests that the lack of data and human capacity is a major barrier to the conduct and use of HTA. This study assessed the current human and data capacity available in Ghana to undertake HTA.

METHODS

As economic evaluation (EE) forms an integral part of HTA, a systematic review of EE studies undertaken in Ghana was conducted to identify the quality and number of studies available, methods and source of data used, and local persons involved. The literature search was undertaken in EMBASE (including MEDLINE), PUBMED, and Google Scholar. The quality of studies was evaluated using the Consolidated Health Economics Evaluation Reporting Standards. The number of local Ghanaians who contributed to authorship were used as a proxy for assessing human capacity for HTA.

RESULTS

Thirty-one studies were included in the final review. Overall, studies were of good quality. Studies derived their effectiveness, resource utilization and cost data mainly from Ghana. The most common source of cost data was from the National Health Insurance Scheme pricing list for medicines and tariffs. Effectiveness data were mostly derived from either single study or intervention programs. Sixty out of 199 authors were Ghanaians (30 percent); these authors were mostly involved in data collection and study conceptualization.

CONCLUSIONS

Human capacity for HTA in Ghana is limited. To introduce HTA successfully in Ghana, policy makers would need to develop more local capacity to undertake Ghanaian-specific HTA.

Exploring the value of a Doctor of Philosophy program in Pharmaceutical Outcomes and Policy Research in Saudi Arabia

Background

The need for graduate education in Pharmaceutical Outcomes and Policy Research (POPR) is becoming increasingly apparent worldwide. However, the number of professionals in this field is inadequate in the Middle East. Therefore, this study aimed at gaining insight into the perceived value of a potential Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D.) program in POPR among different stakeholders in Saudi Arabia.

Methods

Following the development of a Ph.D. program structure in POPR, a questionnaire was created to explore the perception of its value among decision-makers in different healthcare and governmental institutions. An email with detailed information on the proposed program was sent to 131 identified individuals along with an online link to the questionnaire.

Results

Responses were provided by 107 (81.67%) individuals. The majority of respondents (53.3%) represented large organizations with more than 500 workers; hospitals and academia were the most represented types of institutions. More than 85% of the participants strongly agreed that the program will meet the needs of the healthcare market in Saudi Arabia and that there will be a demand for graduates of the program over the next 5–10 years. However, only 28.04% of the participants declared that they would definitely recommend the program to their colleagues and employees, and 49.53% would consider employing its graduates.

Conclusions

The obtained results indicate a significant interest among different stakeholders in introducing a Ph.D. program in POPR in Saudi Arabia.

Review of Pharmacoeconomic Studies in Russian Cancer Research: An Outside View

BACKGROUND

There is an increasing number of Russian economic evaluation studies in oncology, the scope and quality of which are unknown.

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to assess the scope and quality of economic evaluations in oncology, with the goal of elucidating implications for improving their use in Russia.

METHODS

Online databases were searched for oncologic economic evaluations written in Russian. Data were extracted and assessed with the Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES) instrument. In addition, the QHES was modified to overcome double-barreled items in a single criterion.

RESULTS

Of 29 articles identified, 15 met study criteria and were included in the review. Most studies analyzed cost-effectiveness of first- and second-line therapies for lung and kidney cancer. The others analyzed prostate, breast, and colorectal cancers and lymphoma. The QHES mean quality score for the reviewed studies was 74 (and 69 with the modified tool). Comparison of the quality of different study types revealed that cost utility studies and studies that used decision trees and Markov models had the highest mean quality score. Clear statements regarding bias, study limitations, uncertainty, study perspectives, and funding source were commonly absent in the reviewed studies.

CONCLUSION

Our review indicates that oncologic economic evaluations published in Russian are limited in scope and number. In addition, they demonstrate opportunities for improvement in several important technical areas.

A systematic review of pharmacoeconomic evaluations of erlotinib in the first-line treatment of advanced non-small cell lung cancer

OBJECTIVE

To review and assess the quality of the available evidence on the cost-effectiveness of erlotinib in the first-line treatment of advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

METHODS

A systematic review was conducted to identify full-text original economic evaluations of erlotinib in the first-line treatment of advanced NSCLC written in English and published from the year 2000 onwards. Study characteristics and results were recorded and compared. The quality of the studies was assessed by the Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES) questionnaire.

RESULTS

Eleven out of 130 papers were chosen for this review. Comparative regimens consisted of a best supportive care, reverse strategy, bevacizumab, cisplatin plus pemetrexed, carboplatin plus gemcitabine or gefitinib. The methods most used in these studies were modeling and sensitivity analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis. All of the studies evaluated direct costs and used quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) and life-years gained (LYG) as outcome, with 3% and 3.5% discount rate. The studies assigned ICER that ranged from dominant to I$305,510.31/QALY and from I$31,209.55/LYG to I$66,540.20/LYG. Based on the willingness to pay threshold, seven studies concluded that erlotinib was cost-effective, two studies showed that erlotinib was cost-effective on specific patients with certain conditions, and two studies comparing erlotinib with reverse strategy did not find a difference in cost-effectiveness. The high quality of these studies was confirmed using the QHES tool: the mean score was 75.77 out of 100 (SD 9.38).

CONCLUSION

Most of these high-quality studies suggested that erlotinib was cost-effective in the first-line treatment of advanced NSCLC.

A Systematic Review on the Extent and Quality of Pharmacoeconomic Publications in Egypt

BACKGROUND

Egypt faces many challenges when matching patient needs with available resources. Consequently, there has been an increasing interest in pharmacoeconomics as an aid tool in health decision-making to better allocate resources.

OBJECTIVES

To review and evaluate the volume and the quality of published pharmacoeconomic studies in Egypt.

METHODS

A literature search was conducted in August 2018 using PubMed, Google Scholar, and Cochrane library to identify published Egyptian pharmacoeconomic studies. Articles were included if they were original economic studies, written and published in English, and conducted in Egypt. Each article was assessed independently by two reviewers using the 100-point Quality of Health Evaluation Studies (QHES) scale.

RESULTS

Fifteen studies published between 2002 and 2017 were included in the review. Most of them were cost-effectiveness analyses (60%). The minority used secondary data (33.3%) or adopted modeling techniques (40%). The mean QHES score of the included studies was 70.1 ± 21.8, and approximately 40% of them had a QHES score of more than 80.

CONCLUSION

Pharmacoeconomic evaluations in Egypt are still in their infancy. The Egyptian guidelines for economic evaluation should be adopted and the EQ-5D-5L value sets should be developed to increase the quality of economic research.

Identifying priority technical and context-specific issues in improving the conduct, reporting and use of health economic evaluation in low- and middle-income countries

Background

The use of economic evaluation in healthcare policies and decision-making, which is limited in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), might be promoted through the improvement of the conduct and reporting of studies. Although the literature indicates that there are many issues affecting the conduct, reporting and use of this evidence, it is unclear which factors should be prioritised in finding solutions. This study aims to identify the top priority issues that impede the conduct, reporting and use of economic evaluation as well as potential solutions as an input for future research topics by the international Decision Support Initiative and other movements.

Methods

A survey on issues regarding the conduct, reporting and use of economic evaluation as well as on potential solutions was conducted using an online questionnaire among researchers who have experience in conducting economic evaluations in LMICs. The respondents were requested to consider the list of issues provided, rank the most important ones and propose solutions. A scoring system was applied to derive the ranking of difficulties according to researchers’ responses. Issues were grouped into technical and context-specific difficulties and analysed separately as a whole and by region.

Results

Researchers considered the lack of quality local clinical data, poor reporting and insufficient data to conduct the analysis from the chosen perspective as the most important technical difficulties. On the other hand, the non-integration of economic evaluations into decision-making was considered the most important context-specific issue. Finally, context-specific issues were considered the larger barrier to the use of economic evaluation.

Conclusion

The technical issues that were considered most important were closely linked with the lack of an appropriately functioning information system as well as the capacity to generate essential contextual information (e.g. data and locally relevant utility values), especially when the methodology is complex. To overcome this, simpler approaches to collect data that yields information of comparable quality to more rigorous methods should be developed. The international community can play a major role through research on methodologies feasible for LMIC settings as well as in building research capacity in countries. Context-specific issues, which were recognised as larger barriers, should be improved in parallel.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12961-018-0280-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Evaluation and Characterization of Health Economics and Outcomes Research in SAARC Nations

OBJECTIVE

To identify, evaluate, and characterize the variety, quality, and intent of the health economics and outcomes research studies being conducted in SAARC (South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation) nations.

METHODS

Studies published in English language between 1990 and 2015 were retrieved from Medline databases using relevant search strategies. Studies were independently reviewed as per Cochrane methodology and information on the type of research and outcomes were extracted. Quality of reporting was assessed.

RESULTS

Of the 2638 studies screened from eight SAARC nations, a total of 179 were included for review (India = 140; Bangladesh = 12; Sri Lanka = 8; Pakistan = 7; Afghanistan = 5; Nepal = 4; Bhutan = 2; Maldives = 1). The broad study categories were cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs = 76 studies), cost analyses (35 studies), and burden of illness (BOI=26 studies). The outcomes evaluated were direct costs, indirect costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs). Cost of medicines, consultation and hospital charges, and monitoring costs were assessed as direct medical costs along with non-direct medical costs such as travel and food for patients and caregivers. The components of indirect costs were loss of income of patients and caregivers and loss of productivity. Quality of life (QoL) was assessed in 48 studies. The most commonly used instrument for assessing QoL was the WHO-Quality of Life BREF (WHOQOL-BREF) questionnaire (76%). The Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES) score was used for quality assessment of full economic studies (44 studies). The mean QHES score was 43.76.

CONCLUSION

This review identifies various patterns of health economic studies in eight SAARC nations. The quality of economic evaluation studies for health care in India, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Nepal, Bhutan, and Maldives needs improvement. There is a need to generate the capacity of researchers to undertake quality economic evaluations as well as an orientation of the policy makers so that there is a demand for such studies as well as a scope for its use in policy making.

Quality Assessment of Published Articles in Iranian Journals Related to Economic Evaluation in Health Care Programs Based on Drummond's Checklist: A Narrative Review

Health economic evaluation research plays an important role in selecting cost-effective interventions. The purpose of this study was to assess the quality of published articles in Iranian journals related to economic evaluation in health care programs based on Drummond's checklist in terms of numbers, features, and quality. In the present review study, published articles (Persian and English) in Iranian journals related to economic evaluation in health care programs were searched using electronic databases. In addition, the methodological quality of articles' structure was analyzed by Drummond's standard checklist. Based on the inclusion criteria, the search of databases resulted in 27 articles that fully covered economic evaluation in health care programs. A review of articles in accordance with Drummond's criteria showed that the majority of studies had flaws. The most common methodological weakness in the articles was in terms of cost calculation and valuation. Considering such methodological faults in these studies, it is anticipated that these studies would not provide an appropriate feedback to policy makers to allocate health care resources correctly and select suitable cost-effective interventions. Therefore, researchers are required to comply with the standard guidelines in order to better execute and report on economic evaluation studies.

PHARMACOECONOMIC STUDIES IN WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION EASTERN MEDITERRANEAN COUNTRIES: REPORTING COMPLETENESS

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to evaluate the extent of reporting necessary information in published health economic research in World Health Organization Eastern Mediterranean Countries (WHO EMC).

METHODS

A systematic literature search was conducted using PubMed and Google Scholar to identify pharmacoeconomic studies conducted in WHO EMC. The inclusion criteria for the studies were: (i) original studies, (ii) compared pharmaceutical services or drugs, (iii) conducted in WHO EMC, (iv) manuscript published in English. The articles were reviewed by two independent reviewers using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) checklist.

RESULTS

A total of seventeen studies were included, each of which were published in seventeen different journals. The mean CHEERS checklist score was 16 ± 4. Most studies were published in journals outside WHO EMC (n = 12; 71 percent). Cost-effectiveness (n = 5; 29 percent) and cost-utility analyses (n = 5; 29 percent) were the most frequently used methods of economic evaluation.

CONCLUSIONS

Pharmacoeconomic studies in WHO EMC are limited and sometimes incomplete. Economic evaluation of pharmaceuticals should be encouraged in WHO EMC to ensure the appropriate allocation of healthcare resources.

Quality of pharmacoeconomic research in China: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

The number of pharmacoeconomic publications in the literature from China has risen rapidly, but the quality of pharmacoeconomic publications from China has not been analyzed.

OBJECTIVES

This study aims to identify all recent pharmacoeconomic publications from China, to critically appraise the reporting quality, and to summarize the results.

METHODS

Four databases (PubMed, Web of Science, Medline, and EmBase) were searched for original articles published up to December 31, 2014. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards statement including 24 items was used to assess the quality of reporting of these articles.

RESULTS

Of 1046 articles identified, 32 studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria. They were published in 23 different journals. Quality of reporting varied between studies, with an average score of 18.7 (SD = 4.33) out of 24 (range 9-23.5). There was an increasing trend of pharmacoeconomic publications and reporting quality over years from 2003 to 2014. According to the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards, the reporting quality for the items including "title," "comparators of method," and "measurement of effectiveness" are quite low, with less than 50% of studies fully satisfying these reporting standards. In contrast, reporting was good for the items including "introduction," "study perspective," "choice of health outcomes," "study parameters," "characterizing heterogeneity," and "discussion," with more than 75% of the articles satisfying these reporting criteria. The remaining items fell in between these 2 extremes, with 50% to 75% of studies satisfying these criteria.

CONCLUSION

Our study suggests the need for improvement in a number of reporting criteria. But the criteria for which reporting quality was low seem to be limitations that would be straightforward to correct in future studies.

A Systematic Review of the State of Economic Evaluation for Health Care in India

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Economic evaluations are one of the important tools in policy making for rational allocation of resources. Given the very low public investment in the health sector in India, it is critical that resources are used wisely on interventions proven to yield best results. Hence, we undertook this study to assess the extent and quality of evidence for economic evaluation of health-care interventions and programmes in India.

METHODS

A comprehensive search was conducted to search for published full economic evaluations pertaining to India and addressing a health-related intervention or programme. PubMed, Scopus, Embase, ScienceDirect, and York CRD database and websites of important research agencies were identified to search for economic evaluations published from January 1980 to the middle of November 2014. Two researchers independently assessed the quality of the studies based on Drummond and modelling checklist.

RESULTS

Out of a total of 5013 articles enlisted after literature search, a total of 104 met the inclusion criteria for this systematic review. The majority of these papers were cost-effectiveness studies (64%), led by a clinician or public-health professional (77%), using decision analysis-based methods (59%), published in an international journal (80%) and addressing communicable diseases (58%). In addition, 42% were funded by an international funding agency or UN/bilateral aid agency, and 30% focussed on pharmaceuticals. The average quality score of these full economic evaluations was 65.1%. The major limitation was the inability to address uncertainties involved in modelling as only about one-third of the studies assessed modelling structural uncertainties (33%), or ran sub-group analyses to account for heterogeneity (36.5%) or analysed methodological uncertainty (32%).

CONCLUSION

The existing literature on economic evaluations in India is inadequate to feed into sound policy making. There is an urgent need to generate awareness within the government of how economic evaluation can inform and benefit policy making, and at the same time build capacity of health-care professionals in understanding the economic principles of health-care delivery system.

Systematic literature review to evaluate and characterize the health economics and outcomes research studies in India

Aim:

This systematic literature review was conducted to identify, evaluate, and characterize the variety, quality, and intent of the health economics and outcomes research studies being conducted in India.

Materials and Methods:

Studies published in English language between 1999 and 2012 were retrieved from Embase and PubMed databases using relevant search strategies. Two researchers independently reviewed the studies as per Cochrane methodology; information on the type of research and the outcomes were extracted. Quality of reporting was assessed for model-based health economic studies using a published 100-point Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES) instrument.

Results:

Of 546 studies screened, 132 were included in the review. The broad study categories were cost-effectiveness analyses [(CEA) 54 studies], cost analyses (19 studies), and burden of illness [(BOI) 18 studies]. The outcomes evaluated were direct and indirect costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and disability-adjusted life years (DALYs). Direct medical costs assessed cost of medicines, monitoring costs, consultation and hospital charges, along with direct non-medical costs (travel and food for patients and care givers). Loss of productivity and loss of income of patients and care givers were identified as the components of indirect cost. Overall, 33 studies assessed the quality of life (QoL), and the WHO Quality of Life-BREF (WHOQOL-BREF) was the most commonly used instrument. Quality assessment for modeling studies showed that most studies were of high quality [mean (range) QHES score to be 75.5 (34-93)].

Conclusions:

This review identified various patterns of pharmacoeconomic studies and good-quality CEA studies. However, there is a need for better assessment of utilization of healthcare resources in India.

Systematic Review of the Quality of Economic Evaluations in the Otolaryngology Literature

Objective

To evaluate the quality of economic evaluations published in the otolaryngology—head and neck surgery literature, which will identify methodologic weaknesses that can be improved on in future studies. A secondary objective is to identify factors that may be associated with higher quality economic evaluations.

Data Sources

Ovid Medline (including PubMed), Embase, and the National Health Services Economic Evaluation databases.

Review Methods

A systematic search was performed of the aforementioned databases according to PRISMA guidelines. The search was performed using otolaryngology key terms combined with the term cost. A manual search of 36 otolaryngology journals was also performed. Included studies were graded using the Quality of Health Economics Studies instrument, a 16-item checklist providing a total quality score of 100.

Results

Fifty studies were identified, and the mean quality rating was 54.7/100 (SD = 30.9). The most commonly omitted methodology components were a lack of discussion of limitations and biases, failure to address the negative outcomes of examined interventions, and a lack of a robust sensitivity analysis. Higher quality economic evaluations were associated with a higher journal impact factor (correlation coefficient r = 0.62, P = .0001), having an author with a PhD in health economics ( r = 0.56, P = .0001), and having authors who have published prior economic evaluations ( r = 0.46, P = .001).

Conclusion

Results from this study have demonstrated that there are several methodological domains that can be improved on when publishing economic evaluations in the otolaryngology literature. Authors should follow recommended methodological and reporting guidelines to optimize the transparency and accuracy of the overall conclusions.

A systematic review of scope and quality of health economic evaluation studies in Vietnam

INTRODUCTION

The application of health economic evaluation (HEE) evidence can play an important role in strategic planning and policy making. This study aimed to assess the scope and quality of existing research, with the goal of elucidating implications for improving the use of HEE evidence in Vietnam.

METHODS

A comprehensive search strategy was developed to search medical online databases (Medline, Google Scholar, and Vietnam Medical Databases) to select all types of HEE studies except cost-only analyses. Two researchers assessed the quality of selected studies using the Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES) instrument.

RESULTS

We selected 26 studies, including 6 published in Vietnam. The majority of these studies focused on infectious diseases (14 studies), with HIV being the most common topic (5 studies). Most papers were cost-effectiveness studies that measured health outcomes using DALY units. Using QHES, we found that the overall quality of HEE studies published internationally was much higher (mean score 88.7+13.3) than that of those published in Vietnam (mean score 67.3+22.9). Lack of costing perspectives, reliable data sources and sensitivity analysis were the main shortcomings of the reviewed studies.

CONCLUSION

This review indicates that HEE studies published in Vietnam are limited in scope and number, as well as by several important technical errors or omissions. It is necessary to formalize the process of health economic research in Vietnam and to institutionalize the links between researchers and policy-makers. Additionally, the quality of HEE should be enhanced through education about research techniques, and the implementation of standard HEE guidelines.

Do economic evaluation studies inform effective healthcare resource allocation in Iran? A critical review of the literature

To aid informed health sector decision-making, data from sufficient high quality economic evaluations must be available to policy makers. To date, no known study has analysed the quantity and quality of available Iranian economic evaluation studies. This study aimed to assess the quantity, quality and targeting of economic evaluation studies conducted in the Iranian context.

The study systematically reviewed full economic evaluation studies (n = 30) published between 1999 and 2012 in international and local journals. The findings of the review indicate that although the literature on economic evaluation in Iran is growing, these evaluations were of poor quality and suffer from several major methodological flaws. Furthermore, the review reveals that economic evaluation studies have not addressed the major health problems in Iran.

While the availability of evidence is no guarantee that it will be used to aid decision-making, the absence of evidence will certainly preclude its use. Considering the deficiencies in the data identified by this review, current economic evaluations cannot be a useful source of information for decision makers in Iran. To improve the quality and overall usefulness of economic evaluations we would recommend; 1) developing clear national guidelines for the conduct of economic evaluations, 2) highlighting priority areas where information from such studies would be most useful and 3) training researchers and policy makers in the calculation and use of economic evaluation data.