Evidence mapPaperPMID 40996621Full record

ArticlePharmacoEconomics2026

Exploring the Generalizability of Foreign Cost-Effectiveness Analysis to Spain Using Data From a Scoping Review of Multinational Studies.

Lidia García-Pérez, Ignacio Abásolo-Alessón, Miguel Ángel Negrín-Hernández

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in PharmacoEconomics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

3 authors.

Lidia García-PérezServicio de Evaluación del Servicio Canario de la Salud (SESCS), El Rosario, Spain. lidia.garciaperez@sescs.es.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5626-8116
Ignacio Abásolo-AlessónDepartamento Economía Aplicada y Métodos Cuantitativos, Universidad de La Laguna, Instituto Universitario de Desarrollo Regional, San Cristóbal de La Laguna, Tenerife, Spain.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9297-232X
Miguel Ángel Negrín-HernándezDepartamento de Métodos Cuantitativos en Economía y Gestión, Universidad de Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, Spain.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7074-6268

Funding

Fundación Canaria Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria de Canarias ENF24/13Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación PID2021-127989OB-I00
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThis study examines the generalizability of foreign economic evaluations to the Spanish healthcare system. The research aims to describe the cross-country adaptation methods identified in a scoping review of multinational cost-utility analyses and to examine the probability of concordant funding decisions between Spanish and foreign results, as well as to identify factors influencing generalizability.

methodsFirst, a scoping review of multinational studies reporting cost-utility analyses for at least two countries, including Spain, was conducted using MEDLINE, PubMed, Embase and Web of Science in April 2025. Data related to transferability were extracted and a narrative synthesis was performed. Second, a dataset of case comparisons-each defined as a technology against a comparator in a specific population-was developed from the identified studies. Each foreign comparison was matched to its Spanish equivalent within the same study. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were converted to 2024 Spanish Euros and compared against a threshold of €30,000 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY). A multilevel logit model was used, with a binary variable indicating decision concordance between Spanish and foreign ICERs/dominance as the dependent variable. We also analysed the distances in the incremental costs and incremental QALYs between countries using a log-normal bivariate model. Country-specific and other study-related factors were considered as independent variables in both models.

resultsThe review included 57 studies. Most were funded by drug manufacturers and conducted in Europe. The majority of authors did not specify their reasons for selecting countries. All but three studies attempted to use local costs, probabilities and/or epidemiological data. Twelve studies incorporated country-specific utilities. A total of 644 comparisons were analysed; 142 were Spanish results and 502 were foreign results with their Spanish equivalents. The cost-effectiveness plane quadrant of the foreign result matched the Spanish result in 84% of cases. Assuming a threshold of €30,000 per QALY, the funding decisions were the same in 93% of cases. The probability of decision concordance was higher when the study was conducted in a Eurozone country or in the United Kingdom. Sensitivity analysis showed the variability of decisions depending on the selected cost-effectiveness threshold. Similar variables were found as relevant factors explaining the distance in the incremental QALYs analysis.

conclusionForeign cost-effectiveness results of those studies analysing drugs from Eurozone countries such as France, Germany, Italy, or from the United Kingdom can often be generalizable and provide meaningful insights for decision making in Spain. However, these findings should not be used as a reason to avoid country-specific studies if they are feasible. Further research is needed to determine if these findings apply to other health technologies. Limitations of the study include the lack of a formal assessment of the methodological quality of the selected studies and the potential risks of bias.

Indexed as

Cost-Benefit AnalysisDelivery of Health CareCost-Effectiveness AnalysisHumansInternationalityQuality-Adjusted Life YearsSpain

Identifiers

PMID40996621
PMCPMC12799686

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.