Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37694178›Full record

ReviewThe Lancet regional health. Southeast Asia2023

Development of the Indian Reference Case for undertaking economic evaluation for health technology assessment.

Deepshikha Sharma, Shankar Prinja, Arun K Aggarwal, Kavitha Rajsekar, Pankaj Bahuguna

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in The Lancet regional health. Southeast Asia, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

29 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Assessing Quality of life of Patients with Cataract and Glaucoma using Generic and Vision-Specific Instruments in India.Indian journal of community medicine : official publication of Indian Association of Preventive & Social Medicine · 2026
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Deepshikha SharmaDepartment of Community Medicine and School of Public Health, Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research (PGIMER), Chandigarh, India.
Shankar PrinjaDepartment of Community Medicine and School of Public Health, Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research (PGIMER), Chandigarh, India.
Arun K AggarwalDepartment of Community Medicine and School of Public Health, Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research (PGIMER), Chandigarh, India.
Kavitha RajsekarDepartment of Health Research, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, New Delhi, India.
Pankaj BahugunaDepartment of Community Medicine and School of Public Health, Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research (PGIMER), Chandigarh, India.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Health technology assessment (HTA) is globally recognised as an important tool to guide evidence-based decision-making. However, heterogeneity in methods limits the use of any such evidence. The current research was undertaken to develop a set of standards for conduct of economic evaluations for HTA in India, referred to as the Indian Reference Case. Methods: Development of the reference case comprised of a four-step process: (i) review of existing international HTA guidelines; (ii) systematic review of economic evaluations for three countries to assess adherence with pre-existing country-specific HTA guidelines; (iii) empirical analysis to assess the impact of alternate assumptions for key principles of economic evaluation on the results of cost-effectiveness analysis; (iv) stakeholder consultations to assess appropriateness of the recommendations. Based on the inferences drawn from the first three processes, a preliminary draft of the reference case was developed, which was finalised based on stakeholder consultations. Findings: The Indian Reference Case provides twelve recommendations on eleven key principles of economic evaluation: decision problem, comparator, perspective, source of effectiveness evidence, measure of costs, health outcomes, time-horizon, discounting, heterogeneity, uncertainty analysis and equity analysis, and for presentation of results. The recommendations are user-friendly and have scope to allow for context-specific flexibility. Interpretation: The Indian Reference Case is expected to provide guidance in planning, conducting, and reporting of economic evaluations. It is anticipated that adherence to the Reference Case would increase the quality and policy utilisation of future evaluations. However, with advancement in the field of health economics efforts aimed at refining the Indian Reference Case would be needed. Funding: This research received no specific grant from any funding agency, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. The research was undertaken as part of doctoral thesis of Sharma D, who received scholarship from the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR), New Delhi, India.

Indexed as

Economic evaluationGuidelinesHealth technology assessmentReference case

Identifiers

PMID37694178
PMCPMC10485782

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.