Table 1.
Frequency of issues being mentioned in included key publications from PubMed (n = 25)
| Issues | Number of studies in which the issue is mentioned |
|---|---|
| Technical issues | |
| Poor reporting | 9 |
| Perspective not stated | 7 |
| Methodology not presented in a clear and reproducible manner | 2 |
| Disaggregated result not presented | 1 |
| Funding sources not reported | 1 |
| Ethical issues not discussed | 1 |
| Lack of high-quality local clinical data | 7 |
| Lack of local utility data | 4 |
| Sensitivity analysis not properly characterised | 4 |
| Some relevant cost data omitted | 3 |
| Incremental analysis not performed | 3 |
| Clinical data not based on systematic review | 2 |
| Lack of reliable cost data | 2 |
| Discounting not performed, if relevant | 2 |
| Methodology lacks standard, transparent methods | 2 |
| Comparator not appropriate | 1 |
| Variations among costs, effects and cost-effectiveness data within and between settings | 1 |
| No objective budget constraints or threshold applied | 1 |
| No reference case specific to developing contexts | 1 |
| Economic evaluation is not included in a formal process to support decision-making process | 1 |
| Limited local research capacity | 1 |
| Limited local good quality journal with a high standard process of review | 1 |
| Misunderstanding between researchers, academia and policy-makers | 1 |