Table 2.
Descriptive analysis of CETs used in identified studies per country
| Spain | Before (2014–2015) | After (2016–2020) | Australia | Before (2016–2017) | After (2018–2020) | Netherlands | Full period (2016–2020) | South Africa | Full period (2016–20) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total studies | 129 | 144 | Total studies | 162 | 174 | Total studies | 511 | Total studies | 51 |
| Protocols | 14 (11%) | 21 (15%) | Protocols | 46 (28%) | 55 (32%) | Protocols | 161 (32%) | Protocols | 4 (8%) |
| CEAs | 115 (89%) | 123 (85%) | CEAs | 116 (72%) | 119 (68%) | CEAs | 350 (68%) | CEAs | 47 (92%) |
| CETs used in protocols | CETs used in protocols | CETs used in protocols | CETs used in protocols | ||||||
| None | 14 (100%) | 17 (81%) | None | 44 (96%) | 48 (87%) | None | 156 (97%) | None | 3 (75%) |
| CETs used in CEAs | CETs used in CEAs | CETs used in CEAs | CETs used in CEAs | ||||||
| 1. €30,000 | 78 (68%) | 39 (32%) | 1. AUD50,000 | 75 (65%) | 71 (60%) | 1. €20,000 - €80,000 | 194 (55%) | 1. 1-3 times GDP | 30 (64%) |
| Justification: | Justification: | Justification: | Justification: | ||||||
| Sacristán [24] | 54 (47%) | 17 (14%) | None | 23 (20%) | 22 (18%) | RVZ [28] | 41 (12%) | WHO [8] | 17 (36%) |
| Other | 12 (10%) | 6 (5%) | George [4] | 5 (4%) | 10 (8%) | ZIN [2] | 61 (17%) | Other | 10 (21%) |
| None | 12 (10%) | 14 (11%) | Harris [37] | 16 (14%) | 8 (7%) | Other | 36 (10%) | None | 3 (6%) |
| Other | 31 (27%) | 31 (26%) | None | 56 (16%) | |||||
| 2. €20,000–€25,000 | NA | 27 (22%) | 2. AUD28,000 | NA | 13 (11%) | 2. Other | 78 (22%) | 2. Other | 9 (19%) |
| 3. Both €20,000–€30,000 | NA | 7 (6%) | 3. Other | 29 (25%) | 20 (17%) | 3. None | 78 (22%) | 3. None | 8 (17%) |
| 4. Other | 15 (13%) | 29 (24%) | 4. None | 12 (10%) | 15 (13%) | ||||
| 5. None | 22 (19%) | 23 (19%) | |||||||
CEAs cost-effectiveness analyses, CET cost-effectiveness threshold