Table 3 Descriptive and reporting characteristics of included cost-effectiveness analyses (n = 223)

Title

Identification

 Specific terms “cost-effectiveness” or “cost-utility analysis” in title

181

81.2

Objective

Study question

 Clear presentation of study question and its relevance for decision-making

187

83.9

Methods

Protocol

 Existence of study protocol (or a priori established methods)

10

4.5

Type of study

 Model based

200

89.7

  Deterministic decision-tree model

29

13.0

  Markov model

135

60.5

  Discrete event simulation

11

4.9

  Other (or unclear)

25

11.2

 Non-model based

23

10.3

  Observational (non-interventional) study

13

5.8

  Randomized controlled trial

10

4.5

Population

 Number of participants included (or simulated)

127

57.0

Adequate description of characteristics of the base case population

105

47.1

 Adults

170

76.2

 Children and adolescents

11

4.9

 Newborn and infants (less than 1 year)

8

3.5

 Overall population

4

1.8

 Not reported

30

13.5

Type of interventions

 Pharmaceuticals

143

64.1

 Device/procedure

28

12.6

 Screening

16

7.2

 Surgery

12

5.4

 Educational/behavioural

8

3.6

 Other

16

7.2

Type of comparators

 Active alternative

111

49.8

 Usual care

73

32.7

 Placebo or do nothing

39

17.5

Adequate description of interventions and comparators

184

82.5

Study perspective clearly stated

207

92.8

 National Health System only

156

70.0

 National Health System and societal

25

11.2

 Societal only

17

7.6

 Hospital

9

4.0

Time horizon reported

218

97.8

 Short term

44

19.7

 Long term (>1 year and lifetime)

174

78.0

Diagram of model or patients/events pathway reported

178

79.8

Assumptions discussed

172

77.1

Model validation discussed (when applicable)

88

44.0

Reasons for the specific model used (when applicable)

91

45.5

Measurement of effectiveness^a

 Based on a single study

87

39.0

 Based on evidence synthesis (e.g. systematic review and/or meta-analysis)

40

17.9

Full description of QALY calculation

42

18.8

Harms were considered

129

57.8

Cost and resources information

 Source of valuation for all cost items reported

216

96.9

 Quantity of resources

107

48.0

 Year of monetary units

195

87.4

Costing

 Direct costs only

182

81.6

 Direct and indirect costs

41

18.4

Discount rate for costs and QALYs

161

72.2

Results

Net costs reported

197

88.3

Net benefits reported

192

86.1

Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) reported

207

92.8

Confidence intervals (e.g. 95 % CI)

27

12.1

Cost-effectiveness plane

99

44.4

Acceptability curves

92

41.3

Sensitivity analysis reported

201

90.1

 For costs

170

76.2

 For estimates of effectiveness

158

70.9

 For utility weights

95

42.6

 For discount rates

82

36.8

Type of sensitivity analysis

 Deterministic univariate

85

38.1

 Deterministic multivariate

6

2.7

 Probabilistic

110

49.3

Results for the primary outcome in the base case scenario

 More costs, more QALYs

147

65.9

 Less costs, more QALYs

63

28.3

 Less costs, comparable QALYs

5

2.2

 More costs, comparable QALYs

4

1.8

 Less costs, less QALYs

2

0.9

 Comparable costs, more QALYs

2

0.9

Discussion

Limitations of study discussed

197

88.3

Results compared with those of other economic evaluations

165

74.0

Hypothetical willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold reported

 <30,000 €/QALY

4

1.8

 30,000 €/QALY

126

56.5

 >30,000 €/QALY–≤50,000 €/QALY

36

16.1

 >50,000 €/QALY

7

3.1

 Unclear or not reported

50

22.4

Study conclusions

 Favourable

200

89.7

 Unfavourable

12

5.4

 Neutral/unclear

11

4.9

Other

Disclosed funding sources

169

75.8

 Private/for profit

135

60.5

 Public

38

17.0

 None/not reported

49

22.0

 Mixed

1

0.4

Disclosed conflicts of interest

135

60.5

 With conflicts of interest

94

42.1

 With no conflicts of interest

41

18.4

Disclosed authors’ contribution

46

20.6